Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LOTHIAN REGION (EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD)
ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT)
ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Aujeszky's Disease

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his meetings with the National Farmers Union regarding the financing of the Aujeszky's disease eradication fund.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I met representatives of the pig disease eradication fund, including members of the NFU, on 17 June, when I repeated that the Government had agreed to undertake the Aujeszky's disease control and eradication scheme solely on the basis that the industry would meet the net costs of compensation for slaughter. I told them that I could not agree to a departure from this clearly understood arrangement.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present deficit on the fund is about £13·5 million and that hard-pressed pig producers are likely to have to shell out well into the 1990s? Will he reconsider his rejection of the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture and see whether he can do anything to help this hard-pressed industry?

Mr. Jopling: I am aware of the size of the overdraft, but I point out that £3·7 million was incurred by consequential loss arrangements which the fund introduced in direct conflict with the advice of my Department.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister accept that the ADEF has been a remarkable example of Government and industry working together to tackle a major disease afflicting agriculture? Why has he rejected the Select Committee's conclusion that the Ministry was responsible for some of the deficit? Why does he not give a handout in the way that has been suggested?

Mr. Jopling: I agree that the liaison between the Government and the promoters of the fund has been successful, and I hope that soon we shall be able to announce that the disease has been stamped out altogether. After all, there were only 10 cases this year compared with 443 in 1983. A clear deal was made between the Government and the sponsors when the scheme started, and I see no reason to break that understanding and arrangement now.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that neither his Department nor those representing pig producers foresaw a run on funds and the accumulating interest payments, which are now out of control any more, than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland foresaw the need to ask for £50 million a year because of the unforeseen burden placed on Scottish ratepayers by revaluation? Therefore, will he exert the same muscle in Cabinet as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has done for his Department, and carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee?

Mr. Jopling: The cases are not comparable. I remind my hon. Friend that, when the polls were begun, the Government emphasised that the original estimates had to be treated with caution and that it was not possible to determine with accuracy the extent of the disease and other factors before the eradication schemes were started.

Mr. Randall: Does the Minister agree that unless the Government make good the shortfall in the financing of the scheme the industry's confidence could be damaged, and that might affect its support for other schemes in the future?

Mr. Jopling: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on his appointment and welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that he will speak for the Opposition for many a long year.
There is another side to the story which the promoters of the scheme might do well to bear in mind. The hon. Gentleman says that the producers' confidence may have been dented. The Government's confidence in entering into another similar arrangement, however desirable, might also be dented if this type of hassle goes on afterwards to try to break the original terms of the deal.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Colvin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the new EEC outgoers scheme.

Mr. Jopling: I have received representations on the proposed Community outgoers scheme from hon. Members, interested organisations and individual farmers. These have reflected a number of concerns, including the position of tenant farmers and landlords. The Commission's proposals for the scheme have only recently been published. I am still considering the detailed provisions.
While in principle I am in favour of measures aimed at bringing supply and demand in the milk sector closer together, I am equally concerned to ensure that any such scheme operates fairly throughout the Community. It is


important that the scheme should reflect the interests of all concerned, and in particular that a careful balance is struck between the interests of landlords and tenants.

Mr. Colvin: I welcome that reply. I am glad that no decision has yet been reached. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the basis of his policy on this matter will be that no tenant shall be allowed to surrender or transfer his quota without his landlord's consent? Otherwise, we shall risk damaging the viability, profitability and earnings potential of farms, which will be to the detriment of the relationship between landlord and tenant—a partnership which has served this country well over the years.

Mr. Jopling: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. I believe that there is general agreement throughout the industry that in most cases both landlord and tenant have contributed to the quota. It would be right to try to ensure that a careful balance is struck so that our landlord-tenant system is not jeopardised.

Miss Maynard: Will the Minister confirm that he will not oppose a special redundancy payments scheme for dairy farm workers if the EEC decides to introduce an outgoers scheme for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Lady will be aware that I have on many occasions answered questions about redundancy arrangements. She knows as well as anyone in the House that there are already widespread redundancy arrangements and that many companies involved in agriculture have redundancy arrangements more generous than the basic state scheme.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable anxiety within agriculture about the knock-on effect of a further outgoers scheme, desirable though that might be? Will he bring forward his review of United Kingdom agriculture in order to give a better sense of direction to those involved in making important decisions in that respect?

Mr. Jopling: Yes, Sir. I understand what my hon. Friend says about that, and I have some sympathy with it. Even with the milk quota scheme which is in place Community production still exceeds consumption by, in broad terms, 13 per cent. Measures are necessary to bring supply more closely in line with demand. Any such measures must be applied fairly throughout the whole of the Community.

Mr. Home Robertson: We understand the need to bring dairy surpluses under control, but is the Minister aware that quotas and outgoers payments are only part of the story? First, is there not an urgent need to provide special compensation for the thousands of farm and creamery employees who are being thrown out of work as a result of what is happening? Secondly, does he accept that there is a need for positive guidance to avoid the transfer of the land of up to 2,000 farmers into commodities such as cereals and beef, which are already in surplus? The Government treated the dairy industry disgracefully last year. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will try to get it right in 1986?

Mr. Jopling: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a new rival on the Opposition Front Bench, but there is no reason to use such extravagant language.
As I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), there is a redundancy arrangement which

applies throughout the industry. I understand that many of our dairies, including the Milk Marketing Board, run their own redundancy schemes, which are more generous than the standard arrangement.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received in the last six months about milk quotas.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): My right hon. Friend and I have received a substantial number of representations in the past six months about milk quotas from hon. Members, the industry organisations and individual producers.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Italians are still not enforcing dairy quotas at farm level and that there are suspicions that the French are not enforcing the quotas properly? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that that causes great resentment among British farmers, who have suffered greatly from the quotas?

Mr. Gummer: It causes great resentment if anyone feels that the system is unfairly imposed. For that reason, we have taken every measure to ensure that these complaints are followed up rapidly. The Commission is considering them closely.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister aware that a group of tenant farmer brothers who took over a small farm shortly before the quotas were introduced are now living on the breadline? They came to see me to tell me of their position. I wonder just how many small tenant farmers are suffering as a result of milk quotas.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows how careful we have been to try to use any extra milk that is available to provide help for those who have specific problems. If instances of specific problems had come to his notice, there were methods by which they could have been examined.

Mr. Flannery: The scheme has not worked very well.

Mr. Gummer: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should say that it has not worked very well. The industry, as a whole, thinks that it has worked extremely well. Measures were taken on the basis of the advice that was received from the industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

Mr. Cash: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are adequate powers under the treaty of Rome for ensuring that when member states are in default in these matters action can be enforced against them? Will he make inquiries to ascertain whether we have been able to do that?

Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that we shall take any action that is open to us to ensure that these schemes are carried out properly. We need information, rather than vague reports which undermine what is otherwise an equitable scheme.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give a guarantee that our producers will not be penalised because there may be a shortfall in production under quota this year as a result of bad weather during the summer? We understand that we may be as much as 2 per cent. under quota. It would be atrocious if that shortfall were to be added to any overall cut in quota next year or after that.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have made it clear that we do not consider that any shortfall in quota should be taken into account in that way.

Food From Britain

Mr. Maclean: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will confirm the arrangements for the likely future level of Government funding for Food From Britain.

Mr. Jopling: I announced recently that for each of the three years from 1988–89 the Government will make available to Food From Britain's marketing activities £1 for every £2 contributed by industry up to a maximum of £2·5 million a year, provided that the industry contributes at least £3 million per year. This is in addition to the £14 million pump-priming grant which covered the organisation's first five years up to 1987–88.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my right hon. Friend for continuing to fund Food From Britain. He will be aware that Britain's agricultural produce is the finest in the world. Is he satisfied that Food From Britain is making the most of the marketing opportunities that are available to it? Does he agree with me that much more could be done?

Mr. Jopling: I agree that much more could be done. We have made more money available to allow that work to be done. Food From Britain has made an excellent start. It now has 16 commodity sectors which already bear the food mark and enable producers to guarantee quality produce for consumers. Good progress has been made also with exports. The record British presence recently at the ANUGA food fair demonstrates the marketing opportunities that exist for British exports of the excellent quality to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. John: Does the Minister agree that even the best food needs to be marketed strongly in the current situation? How does he equate the money funded for Food From Britain with the £40 million available in France for marketing its products?

Mr. Jopling: We started a good deal later than some countries. The tragedy is that when the Labour party was in power it did absolutely nothing about this. It fell to this Government to found Food From Britain. We are building it up in a commendable way.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Ashdown: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the new proposals from the EEC on tenants' rights in relation to the disposal of milk quotas.

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations on the proposed Community outgoers scheme from hon. Members, interested organisations and individual farmers. These have reflected a number of concerns, including the position of tenant farmers and landlords.

Mr. Ashdown: I listened carefully to that answer and to the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). Frankly, I remain unclear about the extent of the Government's commitment to help tenant farmers out of their present predicament. On milk quotas,

do the Government now share the Commission's recognition of the rights of tenant farmers? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman press immediately to alleviate the conditions of tenant farmers in relation to milk quotas?

Mr. Gummer: Recognition of rights does not necessarily result in an answer that suits our particular landlord and tenant system. We have clearly said that we recognise that, in almost every case, both tenants and landlords have contributed to production on dairy farms and that we are trying to find ways to have that position recognised. We want it recognised in the context of our situation, not someone else's.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in many cases the tenant has made the relevant capital investment and that any arrangements must take that fact into account?

Mr. Gummer: We said that we would take proper cognisance of that fact and the fact that the landlord also has an interest. We want to ensure that the arrangements suit our landlord and tenant system, not just the system in other countries.

Mr. Andy Stewart: In view of the adverse summer weather experienced in the United Kingdom and the additional debts that went with it, will my right hon. Friend consider whether, under the new outgoers scheme, landlords and tenants alike may release part of the quota and take advantage of the scheme to alleviate their financial difficulties?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have only recently received the preliminary proposals from the Commission. We have been looking at them carefully. That is one of the issues that we will have to take into account.

Food (Quality)

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the quality of food.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): There is already a comprehensive range of legislation regulating the safety, quality and labelling of food. Regulations are kept under review so as to take account of new developments.

Mr. Lloyd: What does the Minister intend to do about those families in receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefit who do not have enough money to buy food that conforms with the Government's nutritional guidelines?

Mrs. Fenner: The issuing of nutritional guidelines is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Security, and I am certain that it is balancing those factors.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that food in Britain is of far better quality and worth than the food that is available in many other countries? Will she also make it clear that we should not put any more labels on food, as they only distract the attention of ordinary housewives?

Mrs. Fenner: I wholly agree with the first comments made by my hon. Friend, but we have accepted the


recommendations of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food report, ensuring that food will be labelled with its fat content. We are looking at a non-statutory format for nutritional labelling, too.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the ways in which the quality of food is enhanced is through the valuable work done at Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food research centres? In the light of that, is it not a scandal that the Government are proposing to close Shardlow Hall in the east midlands by 6 March next year, all for the sake of £1·6 million, yet they can find £252 million to balance the books of the Common Market, and we find that fraud amounting to £600 million has gone on in the Common Market? If the Government can find money for that, why can they not find the money to save the jobs at the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and make sure that the taxpayer does not have to find more money to finance the dole queue?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman knows that that matter does not arise out of this question. We have spent about £200 million on agriculture and food research, and the Government are still contributing greatly to research. However, the food industry also does a great deal in research.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware of the potential threat to the quality of food because of the contraction of competition, caused, among other things, by the practice of discriminatory discounting and other trading practices by the large retail chains? Will the Department take an interest in that matter, although it does not come directly under its responsibility?

Mrs. Fenner: I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department has taken a considerable interest in the matter, but he will be aware that the Office of Fair Trading is the organisation that looks at it. Recently, it considered exactly that point. It found that current practices are not against the public interest, but, of course, it will look at any cases that are brought before it.

Mr. Dalyell: Will Ministers be taking the parliamentary opportunity on Monday of explaining in detail precisely why they find it necessary to cut 27 posts in the Soil Survey of England and Wales and other agricultural research, which has its effect on the quality of food?

Mrs. Fenner: I notice that the hon. Gentleman added the bit about food at the end of his question. I am sure he will agree that that area of research is not wholly applicable to this question, which is about the quality of food.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in discussions with his European colleagues on the Commission's Green Paper, "Perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy".

Mr. Jopling: The Council had an initial debate on the Green Paper when it met informally in September. At its meeting this week there was discussion based on a Commission memorandum on specific ideas for the cereals sector. The Commission has given notice of its intention to issue a memorandum next month covering its wider conclusions from the "Perspectives" exercise. We shall

continue to press for a realistic price policy to be adopted as a central element in tackling the problems of costly surpluses in the CAP.

Mr. Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Commission's proposals for cereals are likely to bear more heavily on the United Kingdom than on other parts of the Community? What steps does he propose to take to ensure that that does not happen?

Mr. Jopling: Co-responsibility levies would pose real difficulties of administration and equity, as my hon. Friend said. They would distort the proper working of the market. We should remember that the levy is a revenue-raising device to provide temporary relief for the budget. Rigorous long-term action on the price level remains indispensable to bring the cereals sector into better balance. Those were all points that I raised at the Council meeting this week.

Mr. Strang: Will the Minister acknowledge that the food mountains in this country are now at record levels and that the millions of tonnes of grain that are dumped in secret stores represent a scandalous misuse of resources? Do his earlier answers mean that he recognises that the proposed co-responsibility levy on cereals will make things worse, because the farmers will see it as a forerunner for quotas and expect him to insist on cereal price cuts?

Mr. Jopling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares my view about the importance of price cuts and the relative ineffectiveness of co-responsibility levies. He also referred to the large quantities of grain stored in this country. We have those tremendous surpluses throughout the Community basically because during the past seven or eight years the Council of Ministers has ignored the advice given to it by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues while his party was in power, and by my colleagues while this Government have been in power. If the Community had taken the British advice from both parties, the surpluses would be less today.

Mr. Body: In view of that answer, will my right hon. Friend explain why there is no surplus and no wheat going into intervention in France, while we have a surplus of 6 million tonnes, which is likely to rise to 7 million tonnes? This morning the Agriculture Select Committee was told that that vast quantity of wheat was now valueless and that nobody wanted to buy it. This year we shall import 3 million tonnes of wheat from France and elsewhere for milling purposes because our wheat is, unfortunately, valueless and not wanted by our trade.

Mr. Jopling: I do not accept that the wheat that we produce is valueless. That is not true. One of the matters about which we have recently been pressing the Commission is that it should have schemes to export grain of feed quality because there are markets in the world where that type of grain is needed. I hope that before long we can persuade the Commission to introduce a scheme that will in particular reduce the stocks of feed quality wheat that we have in store.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Has the Minister, in his discussions with his colleagues in the Community, considered the social and regional policy implications of a substantial shift from price support to direct income aids, which is proposed in the Green Paper?

Mr. Jopling: Yes, I have considered that. I am worried about the possibility of income aids. The Commission has not yet made any proposals, and there would be difficult problems to overcome regarding income aids. They are difficult to administer, there would be problems of conflicts with existing social security schemes, and expense is a major factor. It is an area where national policies could well be far more appropriate. We could find that assistance from income aids would go disproportionately to other countries, and not to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his stand on trying to reduce cereal surpluses? Does he recognise that there is no difference between co-responsibility levies, price restraints and price cuts? In the first instance they will encourage higher production, which is the road we followed on milk, when we refused to consider milk quotas until the last moment. Will my right hon. Friend urgently change his mind and take steps to impose some form of cereal quota throughout the EC?

Mr. Jopling: It is not true that there is no difference between price cuts and co-responsibility levies, because the advantage of a price cut over a levy is that it reduces the price to the livestock producer and makes the product more competitive in the export markets. I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend express support for quotas. If, for example, he wants to put our cereals industry into a straightjacket, so that we who are so efficient would not have the opportunity of increasing our share of European production, that will do a great disservice to the interests of our country, quite apart from the fact that in some parts of the Community it is almost impossible to administer cereal quotas.

Mr. McCusker: In view of the importance of the document to the agriculture industries of both parts of the island of Ireland, and bearing in mind that some people in the EC will attempt to promote a common agricultural policy for the whole of that island, can the Minister tell us whether he intends to seek the advice of the Anglo-Irish ministerial council on that and other matters, where some people will advocate such a CAP?

Mr. Jopling: I have no such plans at this minute.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Nicholls: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give his approval to the leasing of dairy quotas.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in efforts to introduce greater flexibility into the milk quota regime.

Mr. Gummer: I attach great importance to obtaining better arrangements for the transfer of quota between producers. We have been pressing the Commission to bring forward proposals on this, and shall continue to do so. In the meantime, we are exploring the scope for flexibility within the framework of the present Community rules.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an example of when Government lawyers ought to use their customary initiative? Even if it is not possible for technical reasons to indulge in quota leasing, should it not

be possible to devise other methods, perhaps the pooling of quotas? In fairness to the dairy industry, must not such steps be taken fairly urgently?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that my hon. Friend should restrict his comments to Government lawyers. All concerned might consider how flexibility can be achieved. If quotas are not to have a sterilising effect on the industry, there must be flexibility. We shall continue to press the Commission for such changes.

Mr. Speaker: I call Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No. 12, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question is being taken with question No. 8.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of rhubarb around here.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Commission asked for a study on quotas? Has my hon. Friend received that report from the Commission? If so, when will it be published?

Mr. Gummer: We have pressed the Commission for such a study and asked it to take account of the problems in Britain that mean that flexibility is more important here than, perhaps, elsewhere. We are pressing the Commission for the results of the study and for it to take seriously the fact that we are unable to move quotas. Tight control over the system will mean that no new people will be able to enter the industry.

Severe Weather Payments

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is able to indicate into what areas the additional Government assistance will be channelled for farmers affected by recent bad weather conditions.

Mr. Jopling: I have been examining the best way in which to help those worst affected in the livestock sector by the exceptionally bad weather and hope to be able to make an announcement very shortly.

Sir Hector Monro: In view of the catastrophic weather in the north, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland recently, will my right hon. Friend try to make his announcement just as quickly as he can? Even more important, will he make the payments this year if at all possible?

Mr. Jopling: Yes, we shall make the announcement as quickly as we can. I am prepared to see how we can bring payments forward as soon as possible.

Mr. Kirkwood: What has the Minister been doing with his time? He announced at the Conservative party conference that aid would be made available, but there has been a deafening silence since. Is he aware that about £25 million has been lost in my Scottish border constituency as a result of this summer and that there is a lack of winter fodder for upland farmers? When will he make a statement? If it is not next week, it will have been too long in coming.

Mr. Jopling: We quite rightly wanted to get the full picture and have used the autumn to that end. We are now reaching the point at which we can pinpoint the areas that have had the greatest difficulty as a result of the atrocious weather. I hope that we can make a statement very soon.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does cutting agricultural research constitute providing additional resources for farmers in the areas that have been hit by the bad weather? Why do the Government intend to introduce charges for the services offered by ADAS, payable by these very farmers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question relates to bad weather.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My question is relevant.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would relate his question to the subject, please.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The farmers in these areas are suffering and will have to pay the high charges for ADAS. Why should they not be relieved of those charges?

Mr. Jopling: I do not suppose that farmers in Cumbria will read that question sympathetically. The hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity to press for the problems of Cumbria to be taken into account. Although he missed that opportunity, I can assure him that I am looking after those farmers very well.

Mr. Maclean: I echo what my right hon. Friend has just said. Will he take it from me that it is essential that he takes as long as necessary to get the bad weather payments right? Will he ensure that he consults all sectors of the industry so that he may have as wide a spread of advice as possible on how the payment should be administered and to whom it should be allocated?

Mr. Jopling: I pay tribute to the responsible advice that we have had from many people in trying to pinpoint the areas where the problems are greatest and where help is needed most.

Mr. John: When he announced the scheme at the Conservative party conference, the Minister promised that it would be in place by the end of October. This will be the longest October on record. Does he not realise that the livestock are suffering now? Will he expedite from the Treasury money as well as promises?

Mr. Jopling: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman made that announcement at his conference, but I do not recall giving an understanding that the scheme would be in place by the end of October. All I can say is that we want to get a full picture of the total effect of the bad weather before deciding how best to spend the money that we have available.

Frozen Foodstuffs

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about European Community document 9402/84 on the approximation of laws relating to quick-frozen foodstuffs.

Mrs. Fenner: We circulated the draft proposals for a Council directive on quick-frozen foodstuffs to a wide range of interested organisations. We have received comments from representatives of frozen food manufacturers, distributors and retailers and refrigeration engineers.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend do all in her power to ensure that this ill-conceived directive is not

imposed upon the people of this country, who have more experience in the frozen food industry than the rest of the Community put together?

Mrs. Fenner: I agree with my hon. Friend that this country has tremendous expertise in the production of frozen food. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's specialist knowledge. He will know from the debate we had earlier this year that we opposed the directive in its present form. We shall be seeking modifications to the proposals to make them sounder and more acceptable.

Ancient Monuments

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the agricultural aspects of conserving ancient monuments.

Mrs. Fenner: Many ancient monuments are situated on agricultural land and in these cases the main responsibility for their day-to-day protection lies with the farmer concerned. It is, of course, a criminal offence to destroy or cause damage to any protected ancient monument. Farmers can and do enter into management agreements with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, under which payments are made to help with the cost of the positive management of ancient monuments.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask for her reassurance that she will continue to keep an eye on the protection of such sites and the need for proper public access to them?

Mrs. Fenner: In applying our agricultural policy we take acount of other interests, including the protection of ancient monuments. To that end ADAS officers can help farmers to recognise the value of archaeological sites on their land and advise them on the most appropriate farming methods in use for protection of those sites. My hon. Friend mentioned access. The agreements with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, to which I have just referred, can provide for access but I understand that in practice very few do.

Pelagic Fisheries

Mr. Wallace: asked the Minister of Ariculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of restrictive licensing of pelagic vessels.

Mr. Gummer: A consultative paper on the review of restrictive licensing for the pelagic fisheries was circulated to industry organisations on 4 October 1985. When all those who wish to do so have expressed their views, Fisheries Ministers hope to reach decisions on future licensing arrangements before the end of the year.

Mr. Wallace: Various people in the industry will be relieved that a statement will be made before the end of the year, because the uncertainty has not been good for the industry. Will the Minister accept that if any move is made to increase the number of freezer trawlers available for the pelagic fisheries, that will be viewed with great concern by those who are interested in conservation and particularly by people in my constituency, who will be adversely affected?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the reason why we set up this investigation was do deal with all these issues. No decisions will be made without taking very seriously all the points that he has put forward.

Mr. Harris: With regard to conservation, has my hon. Friend seen the report in this week's Fishing News that two of the constituents of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) are buying a giant purser from Norway which has capacity in its hold for 1,100 tonnes of fish? Does he agree that it is pointless to buy a huge boat such as that if the owners then try to gain access to stocks that are under pressure?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there is considerable argument in this area, and that it was therefore sensible of the Government to make sure that we had the full facts before making our decision. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may feel that it has taken some time, but it is better to get the answer right than to get a rushed answer wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Klaus Barbie

Mr. Freeson: asked the Prime Minister if, in the light of the recently published report "L'affreux Secret" by John Loftus, special investigator for the United States Justice Department, she will cause an investigation to be made into the connection of British Intelligence with the case of the Nazi Klaus Barbie.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Freeson: Why the secrecy in dealing with the facts of the matter? Is it not the case that Klaus Barbie was recruited by British intelligence as an agent immediately post-war, along with many other ex-SS spies who were recruited by MI6? Is it not the case that there may well be more facts to be elicited, or are we to have a cover-up such as there has been over Dr. Mengele?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a very strong tradition of reticence on these affairs, which has applied to Governments of all parties since the war. I cannot go any further in my reply than the answers that have hitherto been given.

Engagements

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
This morning my right hon. Friend presided at a meeting of the Cabinet, and is now in Brussels for President Reagan's briefing of the NATO Council.

Mrs. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be a welcome throughout the length and breadth of the country for the achievements of the Geneva summit, particularly the agreement that arms control talks are to go ahead with vigour, that President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev are to meet again soon, and that the establishment of greater understanding and mutual trust is

an essential basis for effective negotiation, with concentration on our shared hopes for the future rather than on our differences of the past?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that, in the context of high profile summitry, being a very hazardous form of diplomacy, there will be a great sense of relief at the achievements that have been secured at Geneva. My hon. Friend appropriately puts the advantages in a way that appeals to the entire House.

Dr. Owen: I warmly welcome the transformation in US-Soviet relations and hope that we may now see deep cuts in nuclear arsenals and concrete agreements in the next year and the year after. However, does the Leader of the House agree that one of the lessons for hon. Members is that the deeply damaging and divisive policies of unilateral nuclear disarmament should be abandoned by the Labour party?

Mr. Biffen: Whatever measure of detente has been secured at Geneva certainly does not derive from a unilateral nuclear disarmament philosophy.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend utterly condemn the outrageous attack on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by badly behaved hooligans who call themselves Ulster Unionists, flying in the face of a growing reality that more and more people in the Province and in the rest of Britain are wholeheartedly behind the agreement?

Mr. Biffen: I deprecate, as I am sure all hon. Members will, the physical attack upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am certain that such action damages the cause of those who perpetrate it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Lord Privy Seal ensure that the Prime Minister has brought to her attention the increasing flood of communications from the length and breadth of England, Wales and Scotland expressing indignation at the terms of the Anglo-Irish agreement and at her personal part in it?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the observations that have just been made. Doubtless they will feature in the debate that we shall soon have.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arrangements reached by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev in Geneva were firmly based on hard realism? Does he agree that that spirit, not the one-sided disarmament espoused by the Labour party and by one half of the alliance, is more likely to lead to arms control and lasting peace?

Mr. Biffen: Whatever success has been secured at Geneva will be in the context of realism that is both hardheaded and cautious. I am sure that it has been secured by hard negotiations unclouded by the sort of gesture politics that are implicit in the CND.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross: Does the Lord Privy Seal recall the presentation made to the Cabinet by the Audit Commission


during the summer recess? Will he confirm that the presentation clearly revealed that local authorities were keeping their houses in order much better than were Government Departments? Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to county and borough treasurers, who have had to bear with the Government's restrictions during the past five years?

Mr. Biffen: The Audit Commission plays an admirable role in the discussion about how best to maintain prudent public spending. I notice especially its endorsement of the idea that there should be museum charges and charges for other entertainment provided by municipal authorities. In broad terms, I am happy to concur with what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Couchman: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read reports that Mr. Ken Livingstone proposes to offer up to £5 million of GLC money to bail out the Trotskyist regime in Liverpool? Will he discuss urgently with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment ways of preventing this municipal embezzlement of London ratepayers' money?

Mr. Biffen: I am happy to concur with my hon. Friend's request, but he will have observed that Mr. Livingstone's exotic gesture does not seem to have succeeded.

Mrs. Renée Short: What does the Leader of the House suppose is the Prime Minister's attitude to the dire straits in which two more teaching hospitals in London find themselves? What advice is she likely to give to the patients who will not be admitted there and to the researchers whose work will not be finished?

Mr. Biffen: Those matters are the responsibility of the North-West Thames area health authority, which will have to judge its priorities within the spending disciplines to which it is subject. But, since I am asked to relate the matter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am sure she will observe that National Health Service spending has increased by 20 per cent. in real terms during the lifetime of this Government, that there are 58,000 more nurses and midwives and that waiting lists have decreased by 80,000 since 1979.

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the efforts of Mr. Eric Hammond in persuading the TUC to accept the use of Government funds for union ballots?

Mr. Biffen: Yes. I have no wish to prejudice the success of the Government's financing of strike ballots by warmly endorsing it to trade union leaders, but I suspect that there will be a growing recognition of the virtue of that legislation, just as Labour Members now realise that there is great virtue in the sale of council houses.

Mr. Madden: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday, 21 November.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Madden: If low pay leads to the creation of new jobs, why is it that in Bradford, where most people in work have always been paid low wages, there are now 35,000 men and women desperately looking for work?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had some compelling or demonstrable statistical information for that assertion he would have given it.

Mr. Marland: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the youth training scheme is enormously well thought of, not only by those who are trained, but by the trainers and the job providers? The extension of the training period to two years is widely welcomed. However, there is some worry about the future funding of the scheme. Will my right hon. Friend use his best offices to ensure that future funding is kept to a maximum, so that the least well qualified who are currently on mode B will be affected as little as possible?

Mr. Biffen: The point that my hon. Friend raises is echoed in many quarters of the House. We have designed the funding of the two-year scheme to help mode B1 providers, so that they will be generally eligible for premium grants. Many will receive special transitional help next year.

Mr. Kinnock: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the parliamentary answer from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which makes it clear that there will be a further cut over the next year of at least £135 million in the Government's captial allocation for housing, housebuilding and house improvement? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that just last week the Prime Minister rather glibly claimed in the Guildhall that she saw a process of renewal taking place throughout the country? Does he think a cut in housebuilding adds to or retards that process of renewal?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take account of the fact that the prospects for housebuilding relate not only to the allocations but to the local authorities' access to their own capital receipts. When these are taken in totality, it is the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that next year will show an increase over this year.

Mr. Kinnock: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman, at least, thinks that local authorities should be permitted to use more than 20 per cent. of the money raised by a variety of means that they want to dedicate to housing? Is he satisfied with the fact that we have the lowest housebuilding starts of any year since the war, that 250,000 building workers are unemployed and that young and old people are in desperate need of houses? If he is concerned about those things, will he use his influence to persuade the Government to change their policy, make those allocations, and allow local authorities to spend more on creating jobs and homes?

Mr. Biffen: It is the avowed policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that


decisions on allocations are taken in the context of the local authorities' access to capital receipts. There will be greater spending next year.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to reflect on the increasing amount of damage being done to the education of our young people because of the continuing teachers' dispute? The National Union of Teachers has initiated a series of strikes in selected constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley). Does my right hon. Friend agree that such action is counter-productive and is not the right way to seek to persuade Members of Parliament to support the teachers' cause? Surely negotiation and discussion is the right way forward.

Mr. Biffen: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Many of the tactics being adopted will create an acrimony that will linger long after a settlement.

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Leader of the House unreservedly condemn the stubborn and self-serving attitude of the leaders of Liverpool city council, who this morning rejected the last olive branch to save their city from municipal bankruptcy? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make recommendations immediately to the Court of Appeal, so that the date for the hearing of an appeal against disqualification can be brought forward? Even if the councillors are determined on kamikaze tactics for themselves, at least the people of Liverpool can be bailed out and given a chance to change political direction before it is too late.

Mr. Biffen: The breakdown of this morning's discussions was absolutely deplorable and can cause but further difficulties for the electors and citizens of Liverpool. The responsibility still remains with the city council to put its affairs in order, and it seems to me that the AMA and the Stonefrost reports show how that might be done. As to the possibility of the court action being accelerated, I am not clear what would be the status of my right hon. Friend in the matter, but I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to him.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill.
Motion relating to the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations.
TUESDAY 26 NOVEMBER AND WEDNESDAY 27 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, November 1985 (Cmnd. 9657).
At the end on Tuesday, there will be a debate on a Government motion to take note of European Community Document No. 11118/83 as amended by 10681/84, a proposal for a directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons and the explanatory memoranda of the Department of Employment dated 12 January 1984 and 18 January 1985.
At the end on Wednesday, Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill
THURSDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
FRIDAY 29 NovEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 2 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Dockyards Services Bill.

Relevant European Documents

Debate on Tuesday 26 November


(a) 11118/83
Draft Directive on parental and family leave.


(b) 10681/84
Amended draft Directive on parental and family leave.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 78-xxiii (1983–84) paragraph 1
(b) HC 5-viii (1984–85) paragraph 2

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. It appears that some satisfactory progress has been made at the Geneva summit and, naturally, we welcome that. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Prime Minister, on her return from Brussels, makes a statement reporting on that summit next week so that she may be appropriately questioned? Will he arrange a debate in the near future in the House on the matters relating to the summit so that hon. Members may have a proper opportunity to consider those matters?
May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange an early debate in Government time on the report of the Department of the Environment on the condition of disrepair of many hundreds of thousands of Britain's houses?
Can he give a date for the debate on the autumn statement? Unless that debate is held in the week after next at the latest, we shall find ourselves in the position of considering the matter even later than was the case last year.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his speech in the debate yesterday and I share his disappointment at the outcome. Will he accept the consolation from me that

I agreed with everything he said, with the single exception that I thought that a decision in favour of televising the proceedings of the House would have been not a leap in the dark, as he described it, but definitely a leap into the light?

Mr. Biffen: To comment on that last point first, there is no one with whom I would be more happy to share disappointment than the Leader of the Opposition, especially as I believe that we shall both be sharing it for quite a while in the future.
I am fully cognisant of the point the hon. Gentleman made about the autumn statement. I understand that the Select Committee is currently taking evidence. I will look into the matter and see how speedily it can be brought before the House.
At present, the report on the state of the public housing stock is being discussed by the Department of the Environment with the local authority associations, but I will bear in mind the desire that it should be debated in the House.
I shall be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman through the usual channels about the possibility of the Prime Minister reporting, after her visit today, and, in that more general context, about the desirability of a foreign affairs debate.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the United Kingdom's continued adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights?

Mr. Biffen: I answered in a somewhat negative fashion when that question was put to me in the recent past, and I see no prospect in the near future of a debate in Government time. However, one of my hon. Friends might like to try his hand on the Adjournment.

Mr. David Alton: Given the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House this time last week that the would look at contingency plans for what might happen in the event of services collapsing in Liverpool, in view of the failure today of the city council's leaders to accept the compromise plan put forward by the AMA, and given the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to convince the leaders of Liverpool city council to see sense, when will the Government come forward with plans to ensure that services to 500,000 people do not collapse in ruin?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has identified yet one more area of disappointment for the Leader of the Opposition. I take note of what he says, but I can say no more today than I said a week ago.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As Leader of the House, is my right hon. Friend really satisfied with a situation whereby the enactments of this House are subject to veto by the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. Biffen: That is a situation in which we find ourselves by virtue of treaty obligations.

Mr. Robert Parry: Given the critical situation in Liverpool, bearing in mind that the workers there will today get their final wage packets, and given that schools will be closed and rubbish will pile up in the streets, not to mention the possibility of problems on the streets, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, even at this


eleventh hour, whether he will meet the leaders of Liverpool city council? If not, will he arrange for a special debate next week so that hon. Members can debate these problems—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Liberal and Conservative Members to shout about the situation in Liverpool, but if they saw the conditions there they would realise the position that the Labour council faces.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's real interest in this topic and, indeed, in the Adjournment debate held last week. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I can offer no promise of a debate next week. Even at this late hour, it is time that the council leaders assumed the responsibilities that at present they are abdicating so manifestly.

Mr Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last Session's Bill on corporal punishment—which must be one of the daftest measures ever to have been put before this House—has been dropped indefinitely?

Mr. Biffen: I can take refuge in saying that, whatever has happened to it, it will not be next week.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House read the report from the Privileges Committee dealing with confidentiality of Select Committee minutes and deliberations? Does he not recognise, particularly in the light of the most recent leaks, that there is a need to debate this matter so that the House can be clear in mind about what is acceptable and unacceptable? Will he make sure that time is made available to debate this?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I was in the Chair in relation to that report, and he is the first hon. Member to have drawn attention to it. I should like to reflect for a little while before I judge how widespread the insistence is for a debate.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a Law Officer to intervene in next week's debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement and to deal with the question of its status? After all, it is described as an international treaty to be registered at the United Nations. But international treaties are treaties between sovereign states, and in this country only the Queen has treaty-making power. The Government may commit only themselves and are not able to describe themsleves, as the agreement does, as a sovereign Government. Is not a possible solution to this problem the fact that the Government of the Republic cannot bind their successor and the Republic of Ireland in any event? If so, is not the agreement worthless?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give the categorical undertaking that he seeks, but I shall do my utmost to see that the point that he raises is dealt with in the debate.

Mr. Harold McCusker: During the debate on Tuesday and Wednesday, will the right hon. Gentleman ask one of his colleagues to address himself to a specific problem confronting me and other hon. Members, particularly those from Northern Ireland, to do with the legislative procedure for dealing with Northern Ireland affairs? Will the Anglo-Irish conference produce

proposals for draft orders, and, if it does and we make representations in the House, will they have go go back to the conference for approval before they become draft orders? If they become draft orders and we in the House make further proposals, and the Government reconsider on the basis of our proposals, will they once again go back to the Anglo-Irish conference for endorsement? If that is the procedure, does it not mean that elected Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland are redundant?

Mr. Biffen: I shall do my utmost to see that that point is dealt with in the debate.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Bearing in mind that Kent has 16 Members while Northern Ireland has 17, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be time to discuss the fixed link in proper form, as this is a matter of great concern not only to the country but to the people of Kent?

Mr. Biffen: As I understand it, on Friday 29 November, there is a possibility of a debate related entirely to Kent. My hon. Friend may be lucky on that occasion, and if he is unlucky we shall look at the matter again.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that many Ayrshire farmers had their crops devastated by the appalling weather during the summer and are now facing bankruptcy? Is he also aware that the Minister of State, Scottish Office promised an announcement about aid at the end of October, but no such statement has been forthcoming? Is he also aware that my colleagues from Ayrshire and I saw the Minister earlier this month, and he told us that a statement would be made as soon as possible, but still one has not been made, even though today there were questions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? When will a statement be made so that the Ayrshire farmers will know whether they will be able to continue in farming?

Mr. Biffen: I understand tht my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said this afternoon that he hoped to make a statement shortly. In any case, I shall draw his attention to what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will recall that previously I have asked for time to be found for a full in-depth debate on law and order. The way in which my postbag on this subject increases shows that there is disquiet over the question of juries, the possibility of hooded jurors, the parole system and the lenient sentencing that we now have, which means that there is no reason for the Government to duck a debate on this subject.

Mr. Biffen: It is not that we are ducking but that we are having difficulty in finding time. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's point, although he must be a little more fair than that. Many demands are made for debates in Government time, and hon. Members like to have a tolerable Christmas recess. However, I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. John Ryman: Last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on the independent colliery review procedures for the closure of pits which have been announced only recently by the Secretary of State for Energy. The right


hon. Gentleman promised that he would have a word with the Secretary of State about this, in view of the difficulties experienced by all parties to the deals. What is the result of his conversation with the Secretary of State for Energy? When I spoke to the Secretary of State's private office, I was told that it did not have the faintest idea how the procedure worked.

Mr. Biffen: I hope to be in touch with the hon. Gentleman shortly.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If it is in order for the House to debate the treaty of the Anglo-Irish agreement, why is it not in order for the House to debate the treaty of the European Convention on Human Rights when this country is so often wrongly held up to ridicule in the rest of the world?

Mr. Biffen: It is not a question of whether it is in order; it is simply that I have not been able to make Government time available.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Instead of having two days' debate on the agreement, would it not be a good idea to set aside a day for the workings of the Housing Defects Act, which the Government introduced some time ago? Nearly every council has found the Act to be unworkable. The local authorities are called upon to devise a repair scheme for the houses, but that is not properly designated under the Act. Is it not high time that a spokesman from the Department of the Environment told the House in forthright terms what authorities must do in order to alleviate the misery of thousands of tenants and residents?

Mr. Biffen: I strongly repudiate any suggestion that the Anglo-Irish agreement merits less than two days' debate in this House. It is of profound significance to the United Kingdom as a whole and a matter of acute sensitivity to the Province of Northern Ireland. As to the hon. Member's suggested replacement, of course it is true that we were to have a debate which would enable the Government to put their record on renovation and repair. It is so formidably effective compared with that undertaken by the Labour Government that I am much tempted by the prospect, but I do not have that amount of Government time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to what I believe was a reasonable request from my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) for a debate on law and order? Bearing in mind the growing anxiety felt not just within the House but throughout the country about the completely inadequate sentences being meted out to rapists and baby killers, it is time that the House had an opportunity to voice its opinion on the important matters of law and order and sentences.

Mr. Biffen: I accept at once the importance of the topic and my hon. Friend's commitment to it. Being fair-minded, he will, I am sure, judge that we have only recently completed the debate upon the Queen's Speech when it was possible for the House to discuss it. It is a matter of balancing all the other demands on Government time with this request.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Leader of the House aware that there will have to be a debate, or a statement, in the House next week on the position in

Liverpool, because it has reached crisis proportions? One aspect that must be debated and upon which we need a statement is how the DHSS will deal with all the staff who will be made redundant. For instance, on Monday the manual workers sign on and on Thursday the white-collar workers. No arrangements have been made to deal with them. The office of the Minister for Social Security told me today that it does not know in which category they will be—they are not redundant and they are not sacked; they may not get paid; benefit books will not in any case be issued until after Christmas, and each case will have to go before an assessment panel. That kind of hardship must be addressed by the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises points which are fair for the consideration of the House. Of course, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to what he has said, but my right hon. Friend is not automatically engaged by the cynical disavowal of responsibility by the Liverpool council's leadership.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: When we discuss the Channel link, will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate all the viable alternatives and is not faced by a Government who gives us just one option on a take-it-or-leave-it basis?

Mr. Biffen: I have already said that I hope that we shall be able to have a debate on that topic in the reasonably near future. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's point when considering the form that the debate should take.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) about a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy on the colliery review procedure, may I press upon the Leader of the House the fact that it is important that we should have that statement and a clear sign of what the new colliery review procedure is all about? A colliery in Ogmore is now under that new colliery review procedure and awaiting a decision. The community of Maesteg is waiting for a decision. A further colliery in Garw is under the review procedure. They are the only two collieries left in the Ogmore constituency. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the meeting that he is to have with the Secretary of State for Energy will be an early one and that the House will have an early statement about the review procedure?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument and his constituency involvement. I shall ensure that the facts as he has described them are put to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Harry Greenway: We have had, rightly, a series of statements on the effects of the teachers' strike on teachers' pay and other matters. May we have an early statement on the effect that the strike is having upon children who are sitting examinations and children who are sent home without notice? Is it not time that the House considered the extremely damaging effect of the strike on children's education?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made his views and anxieties on this aspect of the teachers' strike extremely clear at


Question Time a short while ago. However, I shall draw to his attention the further points that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: May I lend my support to Tory Members who are calling for a debate on law and order in the context of a letter which was sent by the chairman of the stock exchange to the Prime Minister three weeks ago on the enormous mountains of fraud in the Tory citadels in the City? Will the Leader of the House arrange a special debate on law and order in the context of that fraud and the Government's failure to deal with it?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman properly reminds the House how widely such a debate might range. If I am unable to provide time for such a debate as speedily as he wishes, I hope that he will not throw aside his potential speech. The House will have an opportunity to consider all these matters when it addresses itself to the financial services legislation, which will be forthcoming reasonably soon.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government expect Spain and Portugal to come into the EEC on 1 January? Will he confirm also that the matter has not been debated by the House, except for my Adjournment debate, since 1978? Surely a matter of such major importance to the British people should receive the fullest possible treatment in the House. Will he confirm that a full opportunity will be given to all Members to debate the issue and to vote upon it? Will that happen between now and Christmas?

Mr. Biffen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being one of the relatively few Members who have persistently argued the utmost significance of the entry of Spain and Portugal into the EEC for the United Kingdom and its economy. I can confirm that legislation which is now in another place should be before us for consideration and confirmation between now and Christmas.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Why will the Government not put a day aside to debate the recent survey into the state of disrepair of many council homes? The survey showed that 84 per cent. of these homes are in disrepair and that £18·8 billion would have to be spent to bring them up to a reasonable standard? Do the Government choose not to have a debate because they are as windy about their record as these homes are draughty?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that the political argument is shifting away from unemployment to housing, but housing will be as hopeless an area for the Opposition as unemployment has been. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, the report is being discussed by the Department of the Environment with the local authority associations. I accept that it should be debated eventually in the House.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that is felt on both sides of the House about the proposed bid by Elders IXL for Allied-Lyons, which may damage a number of constituencies' employment prospects, including those of Leicester, East? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to debate the growing abuse of companies spending massive amounts of shareholders' money in launching takeover campaigns? Will he consider referring

this particular bid to the Office of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Biffen: I admire the ingenuity with which my hon. Friend draws to my attention the problems of Leicester, East every Thursday afternoon. No one is a more doughty champion of the east midlands and Leicester than he—[Interruption.] I know how to butter my bread. The specific issue which my hon. Friend has raised is being considered by the Office of Fair Trading, and there I think the matter must rest for the time being.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for one of his right hon. Friends to be present on Tuesday to explain to the House—in the light of Dr. Garret FitzGerald's claim that with the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, the role of the UDR has been significantly changed—what part will be played by the representatives of a foreign country in the direct control of a regiment of the British Army? Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is because it is a regiment of the British Army that enmity has been displayed against it, notably in the past week with the murder of another Roman Catholic serving soldier—a sergeant—in Londonderry?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, especially in the context of the Province. As I have said in answer to similar questions, I shall draw the hon. Member's points to the attention of those Ministers taking part in the debate in the belief that they will deal with them.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on whether in the near future the House should consider the position in Liverpool? There are 31,000 employees in the city, most of whom do not live there, who are the innocent victims of the intransigent attitude of the militant Left in control of the city council. If my right hon. Friend does not consider that a debate is appropriate, will he pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the information that most hon. Members are extremely worried about the position in Liverpool and would like a statement to be made?

Mr. Biffen: I shall of course pass on that point to my right hon. Friend. I should like to append this observation: wilful abdication by the Liverpool council does not necessarily involve Government responsibility.

Mr. John Maxton: Most of us accept that the decision taken last night on televising Parliament means that it is unlikely that there will be television cameras within these precincts before the next election. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as is often the case, Scottish Members showed that they are more progressive and sensible than the rest of the House by 47 Members from Scotland voting for television, 17 voting against and one, for some reason, voting in both Lobbies? Will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of televising the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh?

Mr. Biffen: I am still a bit dazed after last night. If I may collect my thoughts, I think that my instinctive comment is, how can I be guaranteed that English money will not be used to televise Scots politicians?

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that parents and grandparents are extremely angry following a summer when children have been neglected—a summer of cruelty to children, rape, manslaughter and murder? It was a distressing summer for anyone who loves small children. Will my right hon. Friend take seriously the calls from Back Benchers to hold an urgent debate on this subject so that we can explore in depth how we may better protect children? The events of this summer must not be repeated. Parliament should enact legislation to protect children. May we have an early debate on this matter?

Mr. Biffen: I take account of what my hon. Friend has said. I have already said to the House that I fully understand the importance of this subject and the passion that it engenders. What I cannot do is to offer the prospect of an early debate—having regard to all the other pressures on Government time—but I take note of what has been said and shall ascertain what can be done.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Leader of the House may be aware of the controversy in greater Manchester about the decision of the chief constable to purchase plastic bullets. It is my constituents who are likely to be affected by the decision should the bullets ever be used. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is an overwhelming argument that the relationship between the police and the community in the inner city areas should be open to the scrutiny of Parliament? That changing relationship should at least have the benefit of the collective wisdom of the House. May we have a debate on the policing of England and Wales?

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to comment on the merits of his proposal. I should have thought that now, of all times, was not the occasion further to politicise the police of this country. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Leader of the House answered a question from the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) about our having an early debate on the serious issue of child abuse. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend that such a debate will take place on Friday 29 November, initiated, dare I say, by myself?

Mr. Biffen: I am more than happy to join the hon. Gentleman in giving publicity to the debate, which will be the first on Friday 29 November. He is right to say that it will give an excellent opportunity to all those who have sought to have a debate on the topic.

Liverpool

Mr. David Alton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending collapse of services in the city of Liverpool".
I take this opportunity to raise the matter because I believe that on Monday it would be convenient, without any major disruption to our business, to move the debates to later in the week, without interfering with the important debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on Northern Ireland. I believe that the matter should take precedence over business that has already been laid down, for specific, important and urgent reasons—specifically because Government intervention is the only solution available. It is clear that every other attempt to resolve the matter, involving the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Leader of the Opposition and many other people, has broken down.
The matter is important because it is a unique problem. It is a tragic first for a city the size of Liverpool, and it is a tragic first for any local authority. The matter is urgent because unless the House acts, 500,000 citizens living in Liverpool will be left without services and 31,000 employees will find themselves without employment and without money coming into their homes to look after their families' welfare. It is also urgent because schools will close and young children will have no opportunity to complete their education. Social services will cease to function and meals on wheels, home helps and a variety of welfare services will not be available—

Mr. Robert Parry: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Alton: Those services will not be available, especially to elderly people, in a city where one in four is over retirement age and where the fastest growing group are the over-80s. From a hygiene point of view, there will be major public health problems when the refuse services break down. No contingency plans exist. The Government have not considered the matter, as the Leader of the House made clear earlier. It is a contrived crisis that is now out of control.
The people in Liverpool feel akin to those in the first world war who were caught in a no man's land with belligerent and incompetent generals in the trenches on either side, hurling invective and abuse at one another. Ordinary people are now being made the victims. One in five of the people in Liverpool is already out of work. Liverpool has more than its fair share of problems. This is an urgent matter, which should be properly debated next week.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending collapse of services in the city of Liverpool
I do not under-estimate what the hon. Gentleman has said, I have listened with great care to his submission. He knows that my sole duty in considering an application


under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or for Monday.
I regret that I cannot find that the matter that he raised meets all the criteria laid down under the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House on this day.

Divisions

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order of which I have given you notice. Will you consider, and make a statement upon, any action which you deem it necessary to take to enable Members already in a Division Lobby with the intention of voting on a closure motion to become aware that the Division has been called off and the main Question is to be put? The problem arises because hon. Members who are already in a Division Lobby cannot hear what is happening in the Chamber and will tend to interpret the initial ringing of the Division Bell on the main Question as being the second ringing of the Division Bell on the original closure motion when it is called off.
There is a simple way of overcoming that problem. Coloured lights could be installed in the Division Lobbies where they can be seen by all hon. Members. They should be illuminated for two minutes after a Division is called off. That is the course that I judge to be most convenient for hon. Members and the efficient conduct of the business of the House.
I believe that my memory serves me right that when it was thought convenient to install two digital clocks in the Chamber there was no investigation by the Select Committee on Procedure. It was an obvious and convenient step, and I believe that this is a step that you could properly take, Mr. Speaker, within your own authority since it involves a change not in procedure, but merely in mechanical facilities, and that there is no need to refer it to the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. The confusion that occurred last night which led me to put the Question again is not unprecedented, but it is rare and I should like to consider carefully, in that context, what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would be dramatic to have the psychedelic effects that the hon. Gentleman suggests but would not a simpler solution be to put monitors the Division Lobbies?

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I should like to consider.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, several hon. Members attended the magnificent performance of Monteverdi's vespers last night in aid of your fund for the restoration of St. Margaret's Church. By arrangement, we left St. Margaret's at 9.50 pm to record our vote in the important Division. I went through the Aye Lobby at the correct time, not on the procedural motion when the Division was called off, but on the main Question. On looking at Hansard this morning, I find that my name is not recorded as having voted.
I therefore ask for two things: first, that the record be put right; and, secondly, that, in view of the confusion and the possibility of other names having been omitted—some names that I expected to see are not in the list—there be a recount.

Mr. Speaker: If what the hon. Gentleman says is right—I am sure it is—I shall ensure that his name is recorded as having voted among the Ayes. On the second point, I have taken account of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has said, that the figures may show a discrepancy of one in the names and the count. I cannot accede to the second request.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful to know what caused the problem last night. It arose from the fact that it was not whipped business. With great respect to those hon. Members who acted as tellers and then were not found for the closure motion but were in place for the main Question, they were not professional Whips and they had no control, so to speak. When things alter in the Chamber during Government business or whipped business, the Whips get into position to inform people in the Lobbies and the procedure goes through smoothly. Last night we had good amateur Whips, who caused confusion because of their lack of experience.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the usual channels will be heartened by the hon. Gentleman's support of them.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday there was a double confusion. There were hon. Members in the Aye Lobby who genuinely thought that they were voting on the procedural motion, but also hon. Members who thought that they were voting on the substantive motion, who voted, like the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), and then immediately repaired to whatever task they were performing outside the House. If you are going to correct the voting register to take account of the hon. Gentleman's vote and his subsequent absence, surely I am right to assume that other hon. Members may have been similarly affected. If so, does it not put the validity of the vote in considerable difficulty?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There may have been a discrepancy of one, and, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has mentioned that he passed through the Lobby, that might be how it was caused. On the right hon.

Gentleman's second point, he will know perfectly well because he was present that, because of the confusion, I caused the Division on the main motion to take place again. We cannot have yet a further Division.

Mr. John McWilliam: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I apologise to you and my colleagues if I caused any confusion last night? When the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) sat down three minutes before the hour of interruption and I rose, I should have made it plain that I intended to resume my seat on the hour of interruption, so that we would have a clean Division. I did not do so, and I apologise if I caused any confusion as a result. The hon. Lady chose to move the closure a minute after that, and that is how the difficulty arose. If it was in any way my fault, I apologise to the House.

Mr. Robert Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today two Liberal Members raised the critical position of Liverpool. Is that not hypocritical, as many of Liverpool's problems arose when the Liberal party was in control with the Conservatives—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order must be one that I can answer.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. On big occasions such as last night, you can be placed in some difficulty. Several related incidents caused the problem, one of which towards the end concerned the Prime Minister. Many Tory Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, but I am not responsible for the Prime Minister or for how she casts her vote. The point of order must be one on which I can rule.

Mr. Skinner: The point that I am coming to is that I do not want you to be placed in that predicament again, Mr. Speaker. If we have to have a recount, which may be a possibility if all those hon. Members did not vote when they should have done, it would be helpful if the Prime Minister could tell us beforehand how she will vote because last night Tory Members were chasing from one Lobby to another asking, "Which Lobby has she gone in? Let me follow her."

Orders of the Day — Armed Forces Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main aim of the Bill is to continue in force for a further five years the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Without such legislation those Acts would all lapse at the end of 1986 at the latest, with consequences for the armed forces that would, at the very least, be unpredictable. At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to revise and improve the Acts where necessary in order to keep the rules regulation service discipline as closely in line with those applicable to civilians as is possible, but taking into account the special circumstances of military life.
I shall highlight the main clauses in the Bill. The House will recall that the present procedure was instituted in 1955 when the Army and Air Force Acts were enacted, those Acts were made for five years' maximum duration, subject to annual continuation orders after the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In 1971 the Naval Discipline Act, hitherto a permanent Act, became subject to the same procedure. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the three Acts to continue for up to five years, subject to Parliament approving annual continuation orders as previously.
Clauses 2 and 3 are necessary to keep sevice law abreast of developments in technology. Clause 2 creates a new offence of intentionally interfering with or impairing the efficiency of service equipment, or of modifying or interfering with signals being received or transmitted by such equipment.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that clause 2, as drafted, creates the equivalent of a criminal damage charge and, because of the intention, provides the maximum penalty of life imprisonment? Does he agree that that is well out of line with civilian law?

Mr. Stanley: We can pursue in Committee the appropriateness of the maximum penalty. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to it as the maximum penalty because it is, but obviously there is no obligation to impose the maximum penalty. We shall cetainly be happy to develop further our thinking as to why that particular maximum penalty is appropriate.
Clause 2 also makes it an offence to do something which is likely to produce the results that I mentioned. The clause is designed primarily to cover interference with computers in ways that might not constitute actual physical damage—for example, the unauthorised alteration of a computer's program. At present, it is an offence under service law to damage public or service property, and in those circumstances compensation can be recovered from the offender's pay. However, it is far from clear that the sections creating this offence would cover the type of interference short of damage that might take place. Given the high degree of reliance within the armed forces on

computers for both operational and administrative purposes, it is clear that such interference could have potentially serious results, and must carry an appropriate penalty.
Clause 3 amends the provisions of the services' discipline Acts concerning the offences which can be committed in relation to official documents. Like Clause 2, this clause also reflects advances in technology. Its main aim is to make it clear that official documents comprise not only written ledgers and papers, but include computer programs and also all other present-day means of recording data, such as photographs, tapes, disks, and films.
Clause 7 removes the three-year time limit within which proceedings under service law must commence. The time limit applies to almost all offences under service law, whether before a court martial, a standing civilian court or in summary proceedings. Although in the general criminal law certain statutes impose time limits for proceedings on certain specified offences, no general time limit exists in criminal law equivalent to the three-year limit on service proceedings. The three-year restriction has caused some difficulties in the past—for example, in fraud cases where the offence has not come to light for some time and the complexity of the case has meant lengthy preparation before it could come to court. We are therefore proposing to abolish the general three-year time limit, but where there is a specific time limit applying to any particular indictable offence, the time limit will equally apply in service law. I should also make it clear that there is no question of reviving cases where the three-year time limit has already expired.
Some parts of the service discipline Acts apply in certain circumstances to civilians overseas—for example, when they are employed by or serve the armed forces or when they are family members or employees residing with someone who is himself subject to service law. Offences committed by such civilians may be dealt with by court martial or by summary proceedings, or, in the case or military and air force law, by standing civilian courts in north-west Europe. It is our firm aim to ensure that the provisions in service law governing civilians are as close as possible to those governing civilians in courts in the United Kingdom. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 make certain changes to achieve that.
Clause 9 empowers standing civilian courts to defer sentence on a civilian for up to six months—for example, to allow the offender a chance to prove his good behaviour in the intervening period. It also sets out the powers and procedures for re-arrest should this prove necessary. To enable standing civilian courts to defer sentence—something that they are unable to do now—will be a useful extra facility for matching sentences to the circumstances of individual cases, and, as I have already said, will match the power that has already been granted to civilian courts in the United Kingdom.
Clause 10 deals with service community supervision orders. These orders can at present be imposed under service law on young civilian offenders, but only on those under 21 years of age. They have no single direct equivalent in the civilian courts in the United Kingdom, but they contain elements of probation, community service and supervision orders. Service community supervision orders require the offender to perform a certain amount of useful work and also put him or her in touch with a professional social worker. However, service courts


overseas regularly deal with offenders who are over rather than under the age of 21. Many of these cases are concerned with offences of dishonesty, when the offenders are often experiencing some form of domestic or personal upset. A service community supervision order would often be an appropriate sentence in such cases.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Presumably a service man serving one of these sentences does not get paid, nor does his wife; is that correct?

Mr. Stanley: These are sentences that might be imposed on civilians serving with the services overseas—for example, a member of a service man's family serving with him on an accompanied posting overseas.

Dr. Glyn: But paid by the Army.

Mr. Stanley: The service man is paid by the services and a civilian is paid by the services if employed by them.

Dr. Glyn: But they are paid by the services?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, in some circumstances. We are referring to relatively minor offences. I do not believe that there would be any stoppage of pay. If I am wrong, I shall write to my hon. Friend.
There is no upper age limit in criminal law for probation or community service orders in the civil courts in the United Kingdom, and there appears to be no justification for retaining the limit of 21 for service community supervision orders. Clause 10, therefore, empowers courts martial and standing civilian courts to impose such orders on civilians, regardless of age. I hope the House will agree that this extra flexibility is sensible.

Mr. David Young: May we assume that, in considering these actions, the Minister will take account of the travesty of the Cyprus case in which great reliance was placed on confessions? Will he confirm that in peace time the natural rights of legal representation will apply to members of the armed forces and their dependants under both military and civil law?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, if he was in the House when I made my statement on 9 Signals Regiment, I said the requirements that are imposed on the service police authorities should be in accordance with the judges' rules, which are the standard rules for interviews. It is a clear obligation upon them. I can make no further comment on that case until Mr. David Calcutt has completed his inquiry.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Can the Minister inform us of the timetable for Mr. Calcutt's inquiry?

Mr. Stanley: I regret to say that that is not possible. Mr. Calcutt has started his inquiry and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, he has been asked to complete it as quickly as is practicable. The length of time taken is a matter for him. He has started quickly and is most anxious to bring his report to as rapid a conclusion as he can, commensurate with the important duties that he has to discharge.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those who serve on courts martials or civil courts are fully aware that no prejudice should be shown towards an officer or a rating who is legally represented?

Mr. Stanley: I should be surprised if any such prejudice entered the minds on anybody presiding in a courts martial or civilian court. It would be contrary to natural justice and the independence of the court if any account were taken of a person who is professionally represented. I have received no complaints on that score.
Clause 11 deals with punishments available to service courts for those under the age of 17. At present, unless a young person under 17 commits a very serious offence, which in the case of an adult would be punishable in the Crown court by imprisonment for 14 years or more, the only punishment available to a service court is the imposition of a reception order under which he or she would be transferred into care in the United Kingdom and perhaps be kept in care until reaching the age of 18 or 19.
I do not wish to give the impression that there is much serious crime amongst young people with service families overseas. Nevertheless, there has been a small number of cases where the service authorities were not satisfied that appropriate powers were available to deal with more serious crimes, particularly crimes of violence, committed by those under 17. Clause 11 seeks to rectify that problem. It allows the imposition of custodial orders on young men of 15 or 16 for not more than a total of 12 months. Such sentences would be served in the same United Kingdom detention or youth custody centres to which young civilian offenders of the same age are sent by United Kingdom courts if sentenced under detention centre or youth custody orders. I assure the House that under our proposals, which go no further than the equivalent provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, such young offenders will be in no way disadvantaged by being dealt with under service rather than United Kingdom criminal law.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that there appears to be a little inconsistency because we are talking about young persons in the families of service men abroad? Will he explain why there should be a distinction between a son and a daughter?

Mr. Stanley: I shall refer back to the primary legislation on the civilian side. I understand that the provision reflects accurately the provision that applies in the civil courts. I believe I am right in saying that these forms of custodial sentences apply to males rather than to females. That is the basis upon which the legislation has been constructed. There is an attempt to keep in line with civilian legislation. I shall examine the matter further. If I need to correct what I have said or to elaborate upon it, I shall write to the hon. Member.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has indicated that the sentences would be served in the same institutions as if the young people had been sentenced by a United Kingdom court. Does he accept that if the children of service families stationed abroad are put in a place of detention or custody in the United Kingdom they will not be in the same country as their parents and opportunities for visiting will be fewer? Does he not regard that additional penalty as somewhat harsh?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there might not be an appropriate place of detention in the overseas country where the individual could serve the sentence. The hon. Gentleman may reflect that it might be preferable for the young person to serve the sentence in the United Kingdom where other relatives or members of the


family would have ready access rather than to be placed in an unsatisfactory detention or custodial environment in the overseas country. Before a standing civilian court would reach such a conclusion, it would no doubt consider closely the issue of access by the accused person's family. The court would doubtless take that into account.

Mr. Sayeed: If the legislation is passed, will my right hon. Friend consider the posting back to this country of the member of the armed forces whose child is incarcerated in the United Kingdom gaol?

Mr. Stanley: There is always provision in our management of the services to deal with the postings of individual service men or women on compassionate grounds. That factor can always be taken into account in such circumstances.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made important points that we shall want to consider further. I want to underline what I said previously about a small number of cases being involved. Happily, the number of occasions when these provisions are likely to be used is very small.
Clause 13 is primarily the result of a recommendation made by the Select Committee which examined the Armed Forces Act 1981. That Act gave certain officers the power to make place of safety orders where children overseas are considered to be at risk. Where there was a longer-term problem which could not be solved within the currency of the service place of safety order, it was the intention that the children should be transferred administratively back to the United Kingdom and into the care of the local welfare authorities, and that has happened in a small number of cases. However, the 1981 Select Committee asked us to consider giving statutory backing to such transfers to the United Kingdom. We agree that this should be done. Clause 13 therefore provides the necessary statutory authority for the transfer. It further allows the service place of safety order to run for up to 24 hours after the child has arrived at the place of safety in the United Kingdom to allow time for the local welfare authorities to make the necessary arrangements to receive the child.

Mr. Bermingham: I welcome the clause. It is a sensible provision in the interests of children. One small matter does not seem to be covered by Army, Navy or Air Force regulations. When a place of safety order is being made, it is important that the child should be represented by a guardian ad litem or a legal representative so that the child's cause may be put either to the officer making the place of safety order in the overseas country or to the juvenile court on the child's return to the United Kingdom. Will the Minister consider the further protection of the child's interests in that way?

Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad to examine the question of representation. I hope that, either within the regulations or by way of administrative practice, proper provision for representation can be made. That is necessary and right in the child's interests. I should like to respond further to the hon. Gentleman. I may be able to do so when I close the debate, with the leave of the House. If not, I shall write to him.
So that we keep the issue of service children at risk in perspective, the House will be glad to know that in the period from June 1984 to September 1985, only four place of safety orders were made on service children.

Nevertheless, despite the small scale of the problem, it is imperative that the interests of such children, and indeed of their families, are protected. The 1981 Act laid the foundations of a system which has worked well in the few cases which have so far arisen, but it is clear that some improvements could be made. I hope the House will agree that clause 13 represents a useful contribution in this important area of service law.
Clause 14, which is the last provision I shall highlight, deals with a rather different problem concerning service women in the Regular forces. Part I of the Army Act 1955 contains a number of provisions relating to service in the Regular Reserve at the end of a period of Regular Army service. However, the Army Act currently precludes such provisions from applying to service women. The effect is that, to all intents and purposes, it is not possible to impose a compulsory Reserve liability on service women in the same way as is the case with men.
Service women now fill many vital roles in the Army, and in some of these important areas there are shortages in the Reserves. One solution to such shortages is to make provision for women to be obliged to accept a Reserve liability on the same terms as their male counterparts when they join the Army. The purpose of clause 14 is to allow this to happen. The main impact will be on new entrants with skills in the areas of shortages in the Reserves, but some existing service women may also be invited to accept a Reserve liability. There is, of course, no question of obliging existing service women to accept such a liability; in their case it will be on a purely voluntary basis
To complete the picture, I should explain that statutory provision already exists to enable a Reserve liability to be placed on RAF airwomen. This has not hitherto been imposed, but a statutory instrument will shortly he laid before the House for an amendment to RAF Terms of Service Regulations in this respect and from next year such a liability will be imposed. The Navy has no requirement to impose a Reserve liability on its service women it prefers in time of emergency to rely on redeploying existing service women and on the services of the Women's Naval Volunteer Reserves.
For the rest, the Bill consists largely of amendments designed to correct minor deficiencies in the service discipline Acts which have become obvious since the last review in 1981. As many of these are highly technical, I do not intend to go over them in detail at this moment. There will, of course, be ample opportunity to discuss these in Committee.
Lastly, I turn to the matters raised by the 1981 Select Committee which the Committee asked to be considered for the 1986 Bill. The Government's response to all these matters has been given in the intervening debates on the annual continuation order, with the exception of three. I shall now respond to the three matters that are outstanding.
First, the 1981 Select Committee asked us to give further consideration to the definition of "the enemy" in the context of the death penalty provision in the service dicipline Acts. We have reviewed that definition at length and in great detail. We have concluded, however, that all the alternative definitions are less satisfactory than the present definition. Indeed, we have found that nearly all the alternative definitions would be likely to define "the enemy" with less precision and could therefore widen the prospective ambit of the death penalty which would be contrary to the 1981 Select Committee's intentions. I assure the House that we have given the matter very


careful consideration, but we have not been able to devise a definition that would constitute an improvement on the one now on the statute book.
Secondly, the 1981 Select Committee asked the Department to consider altering the composition of courts martial to include those below commissioned rank. This question was, of course, thoroughly reviewed by the Lewis committee in 1946, which concluded that such a proposal would not tend to improve the quality of the court nor the prospect or appearance of justice being done. We have now carefully considered the matter once again, but can find no grounds for departing from the conclusions of the Lewis report.
Moreover, there is no evidence of any desire from within any of the three services for the composition of courts martial to be altered in this way. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware, one of the greatest strengths of our armed forces is that they are managed in small units—the ship, the battalion, the squadron. This ensures that, if there is a significant complaint or anxiety, it is known about rapidly and, certainly in my experience, at a very senior level. It is clear from our continuous contact with service men and service women that there is no pressure for the composition of courts martial to be extended to those below commissioned rank. Indeed, I believe that the present system of courts martial and summary proceedings enjoys a very high degree of confidence from those in the services at all ranks.

Mr. Bermingham: I have listened carefully to the Minister's argument. Will he concede that a court martial is a tribunal of fact? With the jury system, we draw the membership of juries on a very wide basis. Should not the same practice apply to courts martial?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman has not already done so, he will want to look at the detailed study that was made by Mr. Justice Lewis. The report is still well worth reading. It brings out, for example, the basic difference in concept between courts martial and civilian courts with the jury system.
The litmus test is whether there is confidence in courts martial proceedings. I believe that most hon. Members who carry out service visits will agree that it is not an issue in the services. The services have a high degree of confidence in the manner in which matters are investigated by courts martial, because they make their decisions on a fair, objective and reasonable basis. In the absence of any degree of pressure or any material concern of which I am aware, I do not believe that there is justification for altering a very well tried and proven system.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Surely, the presence of, say, two senior NCOs on a court martial would not in any way diminish the dignity of the court or the quality of its judgement.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to hear the question argued more fully in Committee. Other aspects that he may want to consider are, for example, the relationship between summary proceedings and courts martial. There is no suggestion that summary proceedings should be handled other than by officers. I believe that is right. It would be somewhat anomalous to

establish different methods of determining and dispensing justice as between summary proceedings and courts martial. That relationship would need to be looked at and considered.

Mr. Sayeed: From my experience of visits to naval and military establishments and my time in the service, I can confirm that I have found no wish on the part of NCOs for a change in the composition of courts martial. Indeed, it is sometimes forgotten in this House that many of the officers who serve on courts martial came up from the lower ranks. There is considerable confidence and respect in the composition of the court.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
The final matter raised by the 1981 Select Committee concerned the service legal staffs. The Committee asked us to consider whether the Army and RAF could benefit from the Navy's system of recruiting volunteers from among their serving officers to read for the Bar and subsequently to perform their legal duties on a part-time basis. We were also asked to review the question of employing civilian rather than service prosecutors at courts martial.
We have considered both issues raised by the 1981 Committee, but do not propose to make any change at this time. However, as part of my right hon. Friend's review of the organisation of the Department that we set in hand last year, a full examination of the Department's legal services is being carried out by an independent legal consultant. That examination will include both issues.
It has been our traditional practice that, uniquely, armed forces Bills are remitted after Second Reading to a Select Committee. We propose that this procedure is followed once again.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House regularly pay tribute to the professionalism, skill and very high standing that our armed services enjoy at home and overseas. A firm, fair and modern framework of discipline is fundamental to maintaining the very high professional and personal standards found in the three services. The Bill will help to ensure that those standards are maintained. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his praise of the armed forces, for which we all have a high regard. It is the first duty of a Parliament and a Government to support and sustain the armed forces, as it is to protect the integrity of the kingdom. Among the many sins of our late sovereign James II—apart from losing the battle of the Boyne—which are listed in the Declaration of Rights in the No Lobby, is the fact that he was accused by Parliament
of raising and keeping a standing army in the Kingdom in time of Peace without the consent of Parliament and of quartering soldiers contrary to law.
For that reason, for many years we had annual Army Acts legitimising the Army and later the RAF. The Navy was under the royal prerogative. The annual Army Acts were replaced by quinquennial Acts and yearly affirmation orders. The quinquennial Acts and, since the beginning of the century, the Army Acts were always preceded by special Select Committee proceedings to hear the Bill, take evidence and summon persons and papers. Last year,


the Select Committee recommended that it travel outside the realm, especially to BAOR, to take evidence on matters of importance to the morale and welfare of our armed forces.
The Bill deals not only with discipline in the Army, but with the armed forces in relation to the civilian population and the powers that the Executive, through Parliament, seek to give to the armed forces to carry out their manifold tasks. It is important to maintain the balance between the civilian population's view of the armed forces' role in society and the armed forces' position in their disciplined society.
The work of the Select Committee has been honoured and observed by the Government of the day. The many recommendations and criticisms made by the Select Committee, apart from the three mentioned by the Minister, were generally accepted. That says a great deal for the composition of the Select Committee and for the wisdom of the Government.
My hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to the courts martial. We regret that the Government did not believe that it was possible to introduce senior NCOs and warrant officers on to the courts. The Government said that there was no pressure or demands from the armed forces. I shall consider how the armed forces can express their interest later. However, we believe that courts martial would be strengthened by the inclusion of senior NCOs and warrant officers.

Mr. Sayeed: Has the hon. Gentleman found, or has the Committee found, any wish in the services for the composition of courts martial to be changed?

Mr. Peter Viggers: As the hon. Member who represents more service personnel than any other, I am not aware of any pressure for representation of non-commissioned ranks on courts martial. A more substantial point in terms of law is that officers are specifically trained to fulfil that function. Non-commissioned officers do not have that advantage. This is not a class or seniority matter. One third of those who serve as officers in the Royal Navy have served before the mast. I believe that officers' training is appropriate and that of non-commissioned ranks is not.

Mr. McNamara: I think it surprising that so many officers in today's Royal Navy have served before the mast. However, I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's point later. There should be an opportunity for non-commissioned ranks to express properly their opinion about these matters. In a disciplined service such as we have at present, it is difficult for them to do so. There should be a body through which existing procedures could be challenged.

Mr. David Young: It is more appropriate to discuss not the training already received, but the training that NCOs should receive, given their experience in Northern Ireland and the excellent job that they have done in command. In many areas, such as cruise missile sites, possible discipline charges arise involving forces of different powers. In those circumstances, members of our forces would like to be represented by their warrant officers who, in my experience, do more to run the armed forces than do the commissioned ranks.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. If this is a matter of training, senior non-commissioned officers should receive training to gain the required skills.

Sir Antony Buck: My recollection is that about 40 per cent. of the commissioned ranks in the Royal Navy gained their early experience on the lower decks, which is somewhat different from what the hon. Gentleman said. No doubt when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies he will confirm that figure or alter it to make it completely accurate. It is a significant proportion.

Mr. McNamara: It is a significant proportion, but they are commissioned officers, not non-commissioned officers.
As to the review of the services' legal staffs, I hope that any measures taken will not result in their privatisation. They should be retained within the armed forces and should be properly trained. The problem with the Bill is that it does not deal with matters that the Opposition have raised in the past. The first of those is homosexuality. In the recent Cyprus spy case, the prosecution suggested that secrets by the sackful were being handed by seven men from 9 Signals Regiment to the enemy, whoever he or she may have been, because they were threatened with blackmail after indulging in homosexual orgies. It was suggested that those men were susceptible to blackmail because of their alleged homosexuality, but one must ask why that is the case.
Why do the armed forces regard homosexuality much more harshly than we do in civilian life? Would it not be more sensible and realistic to approach the problem of homosexuality in the armed forces, as our amendments to the last Bill stated, by saying that it should be regarded as a punishable offence only where it was prejudicial to good conduct and discipline? Had we adopted such an attitude, many of the terrible things that happened to the men in the Cyprus treason trials would not have arisen, and we should have maintained the dignity of the individuals involved. It might also have prevented the recent case of a 20-year-old private soldier in the King's Regiment, who was jailed for life after strangling a friend who had threatened to reveal to officers that they were having a homosexual affair.
Sentences of nine months' imprisonment merely for having a homosexual affair in the armed forces are not uncommon. Such conduct would not be punishable under the general law. We should try to make military law as compatible as possible with civil law. The Opposition want those alterations to the military law.
I do not condone homosexuality. Indeed, I regard it as indulging in a grave sin, but that is a question of my private morality. It is not the way in which society regards homosexuality. Provided that we can maintain good discipline and order, it should not be necessary to hold the crime of homosexuality over the heads of many of our service men and make them subject to the sort of blackmail that was alleged in the Cyprus trial. I hope that the Select Committee and the Standing Committee will consider the matter.
It does not surprise me that the Bill does not provide a better definition of "enemy" in the clauses dealing with the death penalty. Crimes that attract the death penalty include communicating with the enemy, obstructing operations, mutiny or incitement to mutiny, and surrender


of a place to an enemy without lawful excuse and as a deliberate attempt to assist the enemy. If those young men had been found guilty in a court martial in Cyprus during a war, they may all have been subject to the death penalty. We could not allow that sort of thing to happen.
There does not seem to be any real evidence, other than a Catch-22 situation, to show that the death penalty is a deterrent even on the battlefield. It does not properly apply at present to our own Army and Air Force. Those are volunteer forces with volunteer reserves, and they know what they are letting themselves in for, unlike the conscript armies of some of our allies.

Dr. Glyn: I am not quite clear. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the definition of enemy should be changed? I cannot find a better definition, but perhaps he can.

Mr. McNamara: I am not suggesting that the definition of enemy should be changed. For the sake of the present argument I am prepared to accept that because we are stuck with it, as the Minister has said. I am saying that the death penalty should be dropped from the category of sanctions in terms of military discipline. That is not only because of the different nature of our armed forces, but because there is no need for it. The last thing that a soldier thinks about on the battlefield is whether, if he takes a particular course of action, he will be put up against a wall and shot. To make that sort of suggestion is an insult to the nature of our armed forces.
While the death penalty is there and while we have the possibility of what can arise in a court martial—given the problems that exist and have been shown in the evidence in the Cyprus case—we should be careful of having any sort of punishment that is so final that there can never be a review of the case to help the person sentenced. When I was dealing with the matter of the representation at courts martial of non-commissioned ranks, I alluded briefly to another matter. If there was a trade union in the services many of the problems arising from the Cyprus incident would possibly not have arisen. Most of our European allies have trade unions or trade union representation. Most of our continental allies have some sort of representation and some sort of proper way by which non-commissioned ranks and, in some cases commissioned ranks, can deal with problems.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that what he and many of our hon. Friends are saying is that the dictum of Lord Justice Mansfield in 1812 in the case of Burdett and Abbot is still as applicable today as it was then? He said:
a person does not, by enlisting in the armed forces, thereby cease to enjoy his rights as a citizen, or to be exempt from his liabilities under the ordinary law of the land.
In other words, a service man is equally a citizen with equal rights and equal responsibilities. By retaining things such as the death penalty, we deny service men that equality.

Mr. McNamara: I accept what my hon. Friend says, although I did not put it as succinctly as Lord Mansfield, whose dicta at one time were my usual bedtime reading. I was trying to make the same point at the start of my speech. If we look at our NATO allies we shall see that trade unions are established for the armed forces in

Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, where they have the right to be consulted but not negotiate. In Demark, professional organisations have negotiating rights. That is not granted in Greece, France and Italy. It exists but it is not exercised in Ireland.
Many of the problems we had in the Cyprus trial would never have arisen if there had been a proper organisation through which those young men could have been properly represented. Nobody is forced to join one of these organisations, but when we come into power we shall investigate the possibility of such organisations. People should feel that there is a way in which they can somehow ventilate their grievances among themselves and through their elected representatives. Hon. Members say, "Non-commissioned ranks have never come up to us and voiced that opinion," but, of course, they would not. If we want a fine example of exactly the way in which that matter can be dealt with, we have only to look at the way in which the Police Federation works. The police are a disciplined force and on some occasions some people might say they are almost a paramilitary force. But it is worth looking at the way in which the federation deals with the issues concerning its members.
Another matter that should be part and parcel of this Bill and which should be part of the debates in the House, is section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act which gives the Government total immunity against legal action for negligence that results in the death or serious disability of any service man during his day-to-day activities in peace time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has raised this matter in the past in the House, and I feel duty bound to raise it today so that we can have it on record and perhaps look at it in Committee. It is a matter that ought to be brought up to date so that we can deal with it in some detail.
In looking at the Army we are looking at two unique regiments, the Gurkhas and the Ulster Defence Regiment. Despite the press statement made earlier this year by the Secretary of State about the Gurkhas when he announced the disbandment of one battalion, for reasons we understand, there is still some uncertainty about the Gurkhas' strength and future size. We know that the Gurkhas will be maintained after 1997, but we are entitled to know to what extent they will be maintained. We need to know their size and how changes will affect the great dependence that the Kingdom of Nepal has upon this country in terms of remittances and the health of the traditional ties that exist between this country and Nepal through the establishment of the Gurkha regiments.
We should also look at the Ulster Defence Regiment, the largest regiment in the British Army. It is unique in that it was raised to serve only in the six counties of Northern Ireland. It is subject to violent passions, enormous support and enormous hatred. If we look at the Anglo-Irish declaration to be debated next week and which is being debated this week in Dail Eireann, we see that among the matters that the conference between the two Governments will consider is:
The two Governments agree that there is a need for a programme of special measures in Northern Ireland to improve relations between the security forces and the community, with the object in particular of making the security forces more readily accepted by the nationalist community.
It then goes on to say in article 7 that the conference shall consider,
improvements in arrangements for handling complaints".


That is important and fundamental and one would like to know the limits to which that applies. Does it apply to all regiments which from time to time would be taking part in security matters in Northern Ireland, or does it apply just to the Ulster Defence Regiment? What are the relationships to be?
When Parliament originally insisted that we should be able to control our forces, considerable concern was expressed about the part that they would play in peace time and in the period leading up to war. That matter has now received fresh ventilation and has been given fresh importance as a result of the activities of the member Governments of NATO about the special procedures that shall be followed in peace time leading up to possible aggression and being prepared, if necessary, to repulse it.
The provisions to be proposed will contain important emergency powers that the military will have over the civilian population. We gather that these measures have been subject to revision in recent years, and we know that copies of them exist. There are three such measures, entitled the Emergency Powers (No. 1) Bill, the Emergency Powers (No. 2) Bill and the Emergency Powers (No. 3) Bill, titles that could be invented only by someone with that ingenuity for which the Civil Service is well known.
The Emergency Powers (No. 1) Bill creates defence zones around key points, to be known as "ground defence areas"—to be declared so by the Home Secretary—and ordinary residents of those areas may be expelled and their houses may be destroyed to make way for clear fire zones. The Home Secretary may also make orders for people to be detained without charge or trial, and demonstrations can be contained.
The Emergency Powers (No. 2) Bill enables the Government to extend those powers throughout the country and provides for a degree of priorities which would be understandable in time of war. The Emergency Powers (No. 3) Bill is more draconian. It does away with the existing legal system, allows for summary courts martial and trials, including provision for the death penalty, and provides for many and varied regulations to be enforced.
We should be debating those provisions as part of the military discipline measures that we are discussing now. I find it hard to accept the Government's attitude, and that of the Prime Minister in particular, that such matters should be left until circumstances arise which would cause them to be discussed; in other words, when we are moving into a period of war or crisis, a time when temperatures are likely to be raised internationally and, indeed, in the House.
In such a situation there is fear of a threat, when a sense of panic enters even the most phlegmatic of debating chambers. Hon. Members who were here at the time of the introduction of the original Prevention of Terrorism Act will recall the Government saying, in effect, "We have a problem which must be dealt with now." In such a situation, legislation can go through in 36 hours, with a major Bill affecting the civil liberties of the nation coming into force.
We would be better employed spending our time considering the threat and the content of the legislation. I do not believe, in the circumstances outlined by the Prime Minister in her letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), it is

for the Government … of the day to determine the content and introduction of any such measures
because there are other ways to go about it.

Mr. Sayeed: Surely, only the Government of the day and Parliament will know the circumstances appertaining at the time. Because we cannot know those circumstances, we would be dealing with a hypothetical situation.

Mr. McNamara: West Germany has emergency legislation, the Netherlands has similar legislation passed by the Dutch Parliament and, of our NATO allies, Norway, Canada, Belgium, Greece, the United States, Portugal, Iceland, Spain, Turkey, Italy, France and Luxembourg all have legislation designed to deal with precisely the circumstances about which I am talking.
The best thing that Her Majesty's Government could do would be to publish those measures in a White Paper. The measures exist and we know what they are about. We should then at least be in a position to debate the contents of the White Paper. Unless they are published, the Government will be making a gift to their enemies by allowing them to suggest that they have something really evil to hide.
An enemy could suggest that they were taking powers so draconian that even this Parliament, with its ability to question the Executive, will be gone. It could be said that we were not able to defend the individual and that the very rights that NATO existed to defend had been thrown out of the window. That is a dangerous and foolish position for Her Majesty's Government to adopt. Do they have something to hide? If not, why not publish the details?

Mr. Sayeed: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will relate his remarks from time to time to the Bill that is before the House.

Mr. McNamara: Indeed, I am doing that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Sayeed: My question to the hon. Gentleman was whether we could at this time determine all the circumstances under which we would need to use such measures. If they cannot be determined now—because those circumstances may modify the Bill that is finally brought before the House—why publish it? So long as we have the framework of the measure, we have all that is needed.

Mr. McNamara: But we do not even have the framework of the measure. All our allies in NATO, with the exception of Denmark, have the framework of their legislation and know where the powers will lie, including the powers of the military. What will be the powers of the military over the civil population of this country? Let us not forget that those powers in relation to the civilian population have been the essence of the debates on the Army that have taken place in this House for the last nearly 300 years.
Why are the Government not prepared to publish those measures? Is it because secret arrangements have been made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States determining the amount of help that would be given to the United States in a build-up of hostilities or in relation to the great flood of American troops coming to Britain as our main battle army goes to northern Germany and our marines to Norway?
In connection with the power that such foreign troops might have over our civilian population and the degree to which they would be able to conscript that population, there is already in existence
An agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning host nation support during crises or war.
That exists between us and the Germans. I hold in my hand another entitled:
The relationship on host nation support … between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
However, no agreement has been published of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States concerning the powers that would be given to our military and to their military. Those details should be in the measure that we are discussing tonight and should be spelt out to the United Kingdom population.
If it is good enough for the Germans to know what we would do to them and for the Germans to know what the Americans would do to them, why cannot we know what the Americans would do to us? I cannot see the logic behind the Government's reluctance to provide that degree of information. We should know what the powers of the military will be.
This is an important Bill, but it has enormous gaps in terms of the nature of what we—the country and its citizens—should know about what is going on. As our treaty with Germany is public, as is the United States treaty with Germany—and that is very detailed, as an examination of the documents show—the details of a similar treaty between Britain and the United States should be made known.
Matters that arose out of the Cyprus trial are now the subject of an inquiry by Mr. Calcutt. That matter was raised earlier, and the Minister said that he could not give a precise timetable about it. I wonder whether hon. Members should, in Committee on the Bill or in a Select Committee, complete their work before they receive the findings from Mr. Calcutt's inquiry, because his findings will be fundamental to discipline in the armed forces.
Hon. Members may have seen an article in the Daily Mirror about the way in which different people were dealt with by the military, how confessions were obtained and the methods under which the interrogators were trained. All prisoners of war should be treated in accordance with the 1949 Geneva convention, which was signed and ratified by this country and most other powers. Contained within the convention is a provision that influences the instruction given to our own armed forces' police and interrogators, which states:
Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatement
are prohibited. That may apply to the treatment of enemy prisoners, but is it the way we treat our own people during interrogation in internal security operations?
A close consideration of the rules and regulations governing these matters raises the question of application of the judges' rule. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) raised that matter earlier and received a reply from the Minister. It appears that the judges' rule does not apply to the training of people involved in these interrogations. The guidelines state:
In an internal security operation military interrogators may deal with a wide variety of types of prisoner. These may vary

from members of student organisations acting as part of the propaganda or recruiting structure to members of the paramilitary or terrorist groups. Prisoners will normally be under police control and military interrogators will operate in conjunction with or as part of Special Branch. Ideally joint teams or centres should be formed.
What is the relationship between interrogators from the armed forces and special branch and other organisations? Are there many of these joint teams, and do they follow the various procedures laid down in the Geneva convention?
The interrogators are trained to follow Pavlovian techniques of interrogation, which may explain why they obtain many confessions but very few convictions. Included in those techniques are basic approaches that are hard, soft and neutral. The hard method of interrogation includes teasing and lowering the dignity of a detainee, thereby lowering his self-respect, and personal attacks on a detainee's physical and mental attitude and capabilities. It also includes taunts and goads. Such interrogation comes under the heading of "malicious humiliation"—so much for the prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliation and degrading treatment as laid down in the Geneva convention.
Another harsh method of interrogation involves uncontrolled fury with associated ploys of "Mutt and Jeff", threat and rescue, which includes cynical derision, disestablishing one's identity and disorientation of time. All these methods of interrogation have been adopted in this country and interrogaters are trained at the Ashford training centre, Templer barracks, Kent. We cannot accept such methods as proper in a civilised society and they should be the subject of Mr. Calcutt's inquiry. They must be examined very closely. Service men are suffering from them, and they result in the creation of apparent confessions that are thrown out when they come before an Old Bailey jury.
How were British service men previously trained to deal with questions of internal security? Should there be a system of interrogation based upon Pavlov to protect the integrity of the realm? Mr. Calcutt must consider these matters, and I am indebted to the Daily Mirror for bringing them to light. That is not hearsay evidence or the comments of people who claim to have been subjected to "Mutt and Jeff' and told to co-operate or else. The evidence is in the broadsheets and they reveal the training methods. That is not good enough. A special Select Committee and the Standing Committee will have to consider them.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is under a serious misapprehension and I should like to correct him.
He referred to military interrogation training carried out at Ashford. That training is for specialist groups and is intended to train them in resistance to interrogation methods practised by those who may be hostile to us. There is also a limited amount of interrogation training carried out for military personnel in wartime conditions which would be carried out within the ambit of the Geneva convention.
I must stress that the hon. Gentleman's reference to interrogation training at Ashford bears no relationship to the different and separate training in interviewing techniques given to service policemen. That training is not conducted at Ashford but is carried out elsewhere, in


accordance with the judges' rules. The hon. Gentleman has confused two different types of training of two distinct groups for different purposes.

Mr. McNamara: If the Minister thought it important to make that point, why do I see reference in my notes to interrogation in internal security operations relating to members of student organisations? There is also reference to joint action that may be taken with the police and service inquiry teams. Why is it necessary to have three different interrogation methods? Why have the Government not denied the stories that appeared in the Daily Mirror?
The service men in Cyprus were subjected to interrogation methods such as I have described. Mr. Calcutt will investigate the circumstances surrounding the interrogations, including sensory deprivation, long periods of sleeplessness and being kept for long periods without access to solicitors or lawyers. The details are contained in the documents in my possession and I shall place them in the Library where hon. Members may see them and judge for themselves. Perhaps the matter can be investigated in more detail in the Select Committee.
These important matters must be examined very carefully. The Bill is significant because of its omissions. Important matters relating to the safety of the realm, the dignity of the individual and the proper treatment of citizens are omitted. They should be discussed in the House and be subject to annual review. The Government could implement such reviews if they had nothing to hide. So long as they are not prepared to do that, or to allow us to see the proposed legislation in a White Paper or to put the matters before Committees or even publish the agreements with the United States and elsewhere, we must have the gravest suspicion. We should pursue these matters with considerable care and courage. I hope to get some answers in Committee.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I cannot agree with two of the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The first relates to the agreement between ourselves and the United States on discipline. Secondly, he was a little confused, as my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, about interrogation, to which we all attach considerable importance. There are differences between the methods—if I am wrong, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will correct me—that are allowed under the Geneva convention for the wartime questioning of a captured enemy and the peacetime interrogating of troops. This fundamental point is accepted throughout NATO. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great patriot, but I cannot agree with him on those points.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not see the distinction between the new and the old definitions of "enemy". It is extremely difficult. Those who have been looking into the matter have the same view. I cannot think of an example, except someone who "threatens the security of the state".
We all praise the dignity and professionalism of our services and their adherence to discipline. Naturally, we need an Armed Forces Bill to make sure that discipline is preserved. I welcome the amendments that are to be made to the Act. The revision will bring the armed forces more into line with modern conditions and with the civilian law. The definition of "enemy" is important, and we shall probably have to go into that carefully in Committee.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister about custodial orders. I did not put my question clearly, but I am grateful for his answer. Such introductions in the Bill will bring it more into line with our civil law. It is difficult to deal with such factors. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked my right hon. Friend the Minister about children sent over here for custodial sentences, and parents' ability to visit. My right hon. Friend rightly said that there is discretion because there is power to transfer the child. Again, there are differences between the armed forces and the ordinary civilian.
Clause 14 deals with the Reserve liability of women. I am not sure about this, but my right hon. Friend seemed to say that women in service now will not be compelled to sign a declaration, but that in future all new women entrants will be subject to the rule that applies to men. I am not certain whether this applies to their liability not only to recall after their service but to the definition of "secrecy", their previous access to documents and secrets, and the knowledge that they have acquired during their service. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be kind enough to clear up this point.
As my right hon. Friend knows, I regard the home service force as an essential part of our country's defence in war time. At what stage is it liable to come under the Act? I shall now put in a plug. I hope that we can ensure that the force's numbers are increased substantially. I know that it is doing a good job, but there are too few in it to meet the enormous demands that it will be required to undertake if hostilities break out—for example, the protection of power stations and ammunition dumps and the many other duties that it will have to perform.
My right hon. Friend referred also to the office of the Judge Advocate General. My service was a long time ago, during and after the war, so I may be wrong, but I found then that those in the Judge Advocate General's office tended not to be in touch with civilian law, to have qualified a long time ago, and not to have practised in the courts. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North mentioned this point. To be a good advocate, it is no good just getting called to the Bar. I am a qualified barrister, but I am not an advocate. One must keep in touch with the procedures and the changes in the law. One has to be up to date if one wants to be a good advocate. That point requires examination, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me.
A number of important changes are introduced by the Bill. The laws under which the American forces operate is their business. This point is not terribly important, and it is another on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. It is not important for us to know the detail about this. American laws apply to American troops, under the Visiting Forces Act, if they are stationed in this country. That law applies to all United States service personnel wherever they serve, unless they break the civilian law, in which case there is machinery for them to be handed over. We operate under our disciplinary code, whether military, naval or air force, and they operate under theirs.
If an American service man commits an offence that can be tried under their military law—for example, a driving offence—which is also a civilian offence, such a case is normally dealt with by the civilian courts. I stand to be corrected by my right hon. Friend the Minister if that is not so. The Army does not deal with essentially civilian offences, although in law it has certain powers to deal with


them. Once they have been dealt with by a military court and sentenced, that is the end—they cannot be tried again.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 one of the main problems, especially with regard to American service men involved in fatal motoring accidents, has been that they have tended to be tried by their own courts martial within their own jurisdiction? The decisions reached and sentences imposed have, in many cases, been offensive to the United Kingdom population, particularly when the victims have been United Kingdom citizens.

Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Some cases which have been dealt with by the military forces should have been dealt with by the civilian authorities. In some cases, the soldiers have been sent back to their own country. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that that has happened in a small minority of cases. The visiting forces law has been used when the civilian law could have been used. I do not think there are sufficient cases to need any alteration to the Armed Forces Bill.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the visiting forces law may need to be clarified, because American troops might be ordered to fire on British forces? I give as an example the recent incident in Italy where Italian and American soldiers were eyeball to eyeball over the Palestinian hijackers of the Achille Lauro. That could have resulted in a firing match. It could occur in this country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a serious matter and that the law should be clarified?

Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is rather far-fetched. There is little likelihood of the United States forces having to do that. I can think of only one possible case that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind. It relates to cruise missiles. If the American forces were obstructed, our forces might fire. As the Americans and ourselves work together, I do not believe that that could possibly occur, because the senior officers would be co-operating and not fighting. I can see what is behind the hon. Gentleman's fears, and I accept the premise upon which he bases his point.
We all recognise that the Visiting Forces Act 1952 has operated reasonably well. I am happy to see it continued, provided that its provisions are carefully administered and watched by both sides of the House.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the progress that has been made over the Victoria barracks in my constituency. They have been completely demolished. I also thank him for the co-operation that I have received. We look forward to the rebuilding programme and the barracks' occupation by Guards battalions so that Windsor will once again be a complete garrison town.

Mr. James Wallace: This is the first occasion on which I have been in the House when this measure has come up for its five-yearly renewal. I therefore looked at what had taken place previously to see what the tone of the debate was.
In 1981, the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) intervened, showing his interest in a matter which relates to his constituency. I saw that on

that occasion it was mentioned that in 1976 the Minister described the Bill as a "Brigadoon" Bill—it appeared occasionally but regularly in the House. In 1981, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) described it as more a naval refit. As a member of the Church of Scotland, may I suggest that it is akin to a quinquennial visitation, when members of the presbytery visit the kirk and review the spiritual welfare of the congregation and the fabric of its building.
On this occasion we are giving the measure its five-yearly check-up. It has perhaps attracted more attention than usual because of the cracks which may be appearing and which were evidenced by the events that culminated in the acquittal of the seven service men last month.
It would be wrong to prejudge anything that might come out of the investigation being undertaken by Mr. Calcutt. It is not unfair to say, however, that a considerable amount of public anxiety has been generated by that case. Some people may feel that, because of the nature of their operations, procedures in the forces tend to be somewhat rough and ready. It does not mean that by enlistment one loses one's civil rights. The opportunity should be taken during the Bill's passage to assess whether the present procedures for summary proceedings and courts martial, as they presently operate, are efficient and operate well enough to guarantee service men's civil rights.
We must consider also the matter of legal representation at various levels and eligibility for legal aid. The subject of the questioning and treatment of suspects has inevitably been raised because of the events of recent weeks. Section 99 of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 state:
The rules as to the evidence to be observed in proceedings before courts-martial shall be the same as those observed in civil courts in England".
That reference clearly imports the judges' rules into the proceedings. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this point when he replies, but I understand that an exception can be made with regard to service men overseas. Nevertheless, the judges' rules are supposed to apply to courts martial here. The judges' rules are not binding; they have no statutory force. Anxiety has been expressed that judges advocate have not been as rigorous in applying the judges' rules as their opposite numbers in the civilian courts.
We understand that the Ministry of Defence is drafting its own code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is important to train those undertaking interrogation to ensure that they know the judges' rules and the code of practice and their implications.

Mr. Michael Marshall: In addition to the important point that the hon. Gentleman has made, one of the factors which has arisen from the Cyprus trial, in which one of my constituents was involved, is that service men are cut off from their units and seem to be deprived of welfare and access to information and advice from people with whom they are familiar. Does he agree that it is important that they keep in touch with a familiar background, particularly when they are involved with the legal advice to which he has referred?

Mr. Wallace: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is even more important when one is considering the quality of confessions which have been obtained under


questioning. The background must be studied. A relevant factor is that men may have been cut off from their families and from surroundings with which they are familiar.
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether the Ministry of Defence code of practice will be ready in time for consideration by the Committee. It may be some time before it can be published, and, if so, what opportunities will hon. Members have to scrutinise it?
The concern that has been expressed about the applicability of the judges' rules must inevitably arise from concern that some unfair interrogation practices have taken place. The concern is not confined to Cyprus. When my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) learnt that I was to contribute to the debate, he handed me a dossier of papers containing an allegation of harassment on the part of someone serving in the Royal Air Force in West Germany. The dossier came into my hon. Friend's hands only during the past day or two and I have no doubt that it will be passed on to the Minister. As an appeal is pending, I do not wish to say any more about the matter. However, the allegation has been made and the matter is indicative of public concern about interrogation techniques.
If an individual is under arrest, especially close arrest, the interrogation which takes place and the evidence which appears in a statement of confession must be scrutinised carefully and with some degree of suspicion. As a Scots lawyer, I am very much aware of the case of Chalmers v. Her Majesty's Advocate, which I believe is often quoted in the English courts. The case came before the Scottish criminal courts and Lord Justice General Cooper described a police station as being a "sinister venue" for the questioning of a suspect. He said that that had to be taken into account as it could well taint any confession.
The interrogation of a suspect in close custody, which involves the deprivation of all liberty and constant supervision, is all the more suspect. It will be worth considering in Committee whether there is a need for a new clause to provide that any service personnel or police who behave oppressively in obtaining evidence or statements from suspects should be subject to a specific disciplinary offence.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has mentioned the continuation of the death penalty. As one who opposes the penalty, especially in peace time, it is important in my view that we review again the necessity to continue to have the death penalty available in certain cases.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred also to the fact that homosexual activity is illegal and a disciplinary offence in the armed forces. If such activity were undertaken and conducted in civilian life it would attract no penalty. In 1981, the Select Committee took the view that the official argument that the legalising of homosexual activities would make homosexuals more open to blackmail was a weak one. The official line in the prosecution of the service men from Cyprus, however, was that the existence of homosexual activities made them more open to blackmail. It appears that the argument is being pressed in two ways. When the Bill is in Committee we should consider again whether there should be any relaxation of the law in this context to bring it more into line with civilian life, but in a way that is consistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline.
I shall address myself to the new clauses that the Bill seeks to import. I wonder whether the type of behaviour

which is sought to be caught by the provisions contained in clause 2 should be subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. I know that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) will deal with this issue at greater length if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not pursue the issue to ensure economy of debate.
I welcome the provisions in clause 10 on community supervision orders. I accept that clause 11 applies to only a minority of cases but I feel that the court martial procedure is inappropriate for those as young as 15 years of age. If the clause is accepted and a new section is incorporated, it will provide for jurisdiction over civilians. The Minister has explained that the purpose is to keep the law as close as possible to that which applies in the courts in the United Kingdom.
In one part of the United Kingdom—the part from which I come—the courts system for cases that would be otherwise deemed offences does not apply to children under 16. Instead, there are children's hearings. I am not advancing a narrow and specious argument to make a point on behalf of the cause of nationalism. However, it is important that we remember that the law of Scotland is safeguarded. It is upheld by the Treaty of Union to which the House owes its present existence. There must be children who might be affected by these provisions who belong to Scottish families and whose domicile is in Scotland. These young people might be with a Scottish regiment and thereby have had no link with England. It is important that the Scottish provisions for children's hearings, which have been an important development in juvenile justice, are given greater recognition.
There is some recognition for children's hearings within the current Act. Indeed, the Bill refers to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the system of children's hearings. However, I do not think that that Act applies in this instance. If the Minister explains why this is so when he replies, I shall be grateful.
We are now considering the outcome of the Geneva talks, and perhaps our minds are more often on greater issues of defence than those which are set out in the Bill. That may cause us to think that we are dealing with a less important measure than others which come before us. However, the Bill deals with the civil liberties of those who serve the nation in the armed forces. I echo the tribute that has been paid to the armed forces by the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. They perform their duties in the defence of the nation and they carry out a valuable and professional service. It is important that their civil liberties are safeguarded carefully, and that is a proper role for the House. I am sure that in Committee and subsequently the House will give the Bill the careful scrutiny and attention that it deserves.

Sir Antony Buck: I am glad to agree with the tribute that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) so rightly paid to our armed forces. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow in detail the tenor of his speech, which was confined largely to matters relating to the area north of the border. We shall all be interested to hear the response of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am glad that he paid tribute to our armed forces. Indeed, tributes have been paid to them by


Members on both sides of the House and they are entirely justified. I am glad that there is near-unanimity across the Floor of the House on these matters.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and I have paid frequent service visits, thanks to the help of my right hon. Friend and his Ministry. The hon. Gentleman and I have visited many parts of the world to see our armed forces, to examine their discipline and to admire the way in which they carry out their tasks. We have done so in Belize and in BAOR. Some time ago, the hon. Gentleman and I went to the Falkland Islands.
The performance of our armed forces is set out in the White Paper. The White Paper, with superb Tory British logic, has a blue cover, which I am glad to see. An omission is an analysis of the matters that we have been discussing. I do not think that there is available—it is certainly not available in the White Paper but it might be available in other Government documents—information corresponding to the criminal statistics that are produced by the Home Office annually. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider whether it would be appropriate to insert in future White Papers an analysis of courts martial—for example, the number of charges that have been brought and their outcome. That would enable us to determine what the trend is, which would be extremely relevant in considering the Bill. The statistics may be available elsewhere but I do not think so. I recommend that my right hon. Friend considers making this information available and I hope that he will be kind enough to take the recommendation on board. He might choose to make the information available when we come to consider these issues in Committee.
If the statistics are made available, I recommend that they should be broken down so that we may know, for example, how many offences took place in BAOR and how many in Belize. I recall a marvellous heading that I came across once at a Tory party conference. It read, "Tory vote broken down by age and sex". I suggest a more appropriate heading for a breakdown of where offences have taken place so we can ascertain whether a particular problem is developing within a certain military establishment. I suggest that the breakdown should separate the three services.
This is the first time for many years that we have not had available to us the great wisdom of the former Judge Advocate of the Fleet, Ewen Montagu, who has died since we last considered these matters. It is appropriate, when we are considering amending the service discipline Acts, to pay tribute to him. He gave tremendous support to the Royal Navy. His contribution went way beyond the discipline side. He was the author of "The Man Who Never Was", which was a outstanding intelligence coup during the war. It was a fascinating and interesting book he wrote on this. It is sad that he is no longer with us. I know that my appreciation of his wisdom is shared by the Royal Navy. He did an enormous amount of work over many years for the Royal Navy as Judge Advocate of the Fleet.
We welcome the Bill. Not much can be said about it on Second Reading because it clearly commands the support of both sides of the House. We shall want to give detailed consideration to many aspects in Committee. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take seriously the valid points made by hon. Members. It will

be right for the Committee to consider whether it is appropriate to retain the death penalty and to consider the difficult questions relating to homosexuality. I voted in favour of legalising homosexual acts between consenting males of full age, but I think that we would all concede that different considerations apply to the armed forces. Service men often live in tents or confined cramped quarters. Quarters on many of Her Majesty's ships are still small. Legalislation of homosexual acts could have deleterious effects on good conduct and military discipline. Those are legitimate matters for the Committee to consider.

Mr. McNamara: I do not think that anyone would disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Why should it be a criminal offence for a person in barracks or service quarters to engage in such action while someone else employed by the Ministry of Defence in similar circumstances would not be committing a criminal offence? Equally, a person who was drunk on board a ship would be engaging in conduct prejudicial to good discipline and should be punished. But if someone is drunk in his own quarters, so what?

Sir Antony Buck: No doubt it will be the hon. Gentleman's happy fate and, if I am very lucky, my fate too, to serve on the Committee, when we can consider those matters. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) is taking out his pen with alacrity to write my name down. Sometimes one has cause to regret what one says in response to the Opposition. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has made a valid point. I look forward to considering it in greater detail. To impose the death penalty, even as a last resort, is to me anachronistic.
The Bill will put disciplinary matters on a regular and more sensible basis. It warrants detailed Committee scrutiny rather than long Second Reading speeches. It is concerned with the minutiae of service life rather than the broad brush approach. I am glad that we have this opportunity to consider service matters at this time. Remembrance Day has just passed. That is the most evocative time for our armed forces. This debate allows us to pay tribute to them.
It is especially appropriate to consider this legislation now because of the visit to the far east by the families of service men. I think that I am just in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in noting the position of people under the services umbrella visiting far-flung parts of the world. Would they be brought within the framework of the Bill? The welcome visits have been organised by the Ministry of Defence, and I should like to know how those people stand with respect to military discipline and protection.
We welcome this thoroughly sensible measure. It is gratifying that it seems to have all-party support.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I begin where I left off in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I quoted the words of the late Lord Mansfield, who talked about a citizen having equal rights whether he was a serving officer, ranking or rating or just an ordinary citizen. The test of any society must surely be whether there is equality for all before the law. My voice appears to be one of the few dissenting voices on the Bill.
About 100 people are effectively serving sentences of imprisonment in the Colchester military corrective training centre, but their offences are not known to criminal law; they are offences against the military code. Has not the time come for us to recognise that, just as serving in the police force or in the professions is a form of service to society, so is serving in the armed forces? I declare an interest as a practising barrister because much of what I have to say will relate to the legal implications of the Bill, especially clauses 2, 4, 9 and 13. Whatever one's walk in life, one serves society. I would strongly argue that anyone who joins the armed forces serves society.
It is difficult to understand how in the 1980s we can say to men who volunteer to serve in one of the three services, "You shall be subject to a completely different set of rules and regulations. There will be acts that will not be punishable in society in large but will be punishable in your world." The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) said that the time had come to consider whether it was appropriate to retain the death penalty. I believe that we must move towards a standard behavioural pattern and a set of laws that is the same for everyone.

Sir Antony Buck: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to pursue the matter in Committee. I am glad that he mentioned Colchester military corrective training centre. Superb work is done by the staff there and we look forward to the new building being opened.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is appropriate for there to be a different standard of discipline for the armed forces with regard to going absent without leave. That can be dealt with on a civilian basis, but since it is within the armed forces it is appropriate that it should be dealt with in a manner different from that for companies such as Shell or ICI. In those companies persistent absence would mean dismissal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there should be differences in dealing with problems of that type.

Mr. Bermingham: I do not agree. If one does something in civilian life that does not merit a criminal penalty but leads to the deprivation of liberty—which is what we are talking about in a corrective training establishment—the same ought to apply for those in the armed forces. If somebody flagrantly walks out, he is in breach of contract and there are other ways of dealing with that rather than locking him up. That is another point that we can consider in Committee.
Perhaps we can look again at representation before various tribunals, whether before courts martial or any other of the summary jurisdictional courts in the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is argued by some that, if legal representation is allowed, it complicates and delays matters. However, it also creates a greater sense of justice in the result.
Clause 2, frankly, is draconian. It makes it a criminal offence to interfere with a signal or anything else, to interfere with a piece of machinery or any other material matter within the armed services. If the aggrieved mechanic deliberately leaves a spanner in the engine of a Centurion tank, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, imposed by a court martial. At this stage I shall not enter into the argument about courts martial and whether they should be widened in their context. I made my point

to the Minister in an intervention. If I am lucky enough to serve on the Committee, I shall make that point more forcefully and lengthily.
I do not want to cut across Mr. Calcutt's inquiry on the Cyprus trial—I await the outcome of that with interest—but I ask a question about clause 2. Under that clause, it is an offence intentionally to intercept or interfere with signals or other matters transmitted or received by wireless telegraphy equipment. The heart of the Cyprus case was whether signals had been intercepted and passed on. As clause 2 is drafted, all those men could have been tried before a court martial with the power, to sentence them to life rather than by a judge and jury at the Old Bailey.
I do not seek to criticise courts martial too heavily. I have been involved in one or two of them over the years and I have seen the results of them. I sometimes wondered whether a court martial, even with the Judge Advocate General's division present, would have come to the same decision as a jury of modern man's peers. I suspect, sadly, that the decisions would not have been the same.
Justice is an important privilege in a civilised society. I want to see justice for every service man serving under the colours. I do not believe that allowing courts martial to expand their powers and expand the type of offences that can be tried before them necessarily serves the best interests of justice and the British service man.

Dr. Glyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a soldier who abandons his post or does something of that nature, thereby endangering the lives of some of his comrades, should be treated differently from somebody who simply leaves his job in a factory or elsewhere?

Mr. Bermingham: That is a poor analogy. I say that with great respect to the hon. Gentleman. Any man who endangers the life of another commits a criminal offence, and he suffers the punishment of society for doing so. Whether he is a soldier, an employer, an employee or anybody else, that should make no difference. The penalty should be the same.
When one considers military justice, one should apply to those who are subject to it the same standards, tests and responsibilities, the same penalties and opportunities, as exist in a civilian court. That is the point that I seek to make in saying that clause 2 is dangerous and needs redrafting.
For example, when a man deliberately damages the engine of a bus or a transport vehicle in a factory, he commits an offence of criminal damage. As the Bill is drafted, the penalty for carelessness can amount, even if intentional, to a severe penalty. Surely we are not saying that that person should suffer more for being the careless mechanic in the army workshop. Why should there be a difference in penalty? In other words, there must be standardisation in justice in both civilian and forces life.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Mon): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman had been here from the beginning of my remarks, perhaps I would have given way.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bermingham: I shall give way to my old friend.

Mr. Hind: I am much obliged. As a solicitor of many years' standing and a member of the Bar, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that when a soldier is involved in military service, and must consider the lives of others under fire, ordinary criminal law for the private person in the street does not apply? As a consequence, entirely different rules of discipline must apply. People are interdependent. Accordingly it must not be forgotten that people in the forces are volunteers. When they sign on, they accept the disciplinary code introduced by an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he had paid more attention to what I said instead of other matters, he would know that I have already answered that point when I said that, just as in civilian life people whose actions jeopardise the lives of others are subject to the criminal law, people in service life whose actions jeopardise the lives of others are equally subject to the criminal law.
The point that I sought to make was simple. The penalties to be imposed should always be the same. It matters not whether one jeopardises someone's life as a civilian or as someone in the forces—one is jeopardising the life of somebody else. That is the test. The penalties under military law should be the same as under civilian law. I am not saying that there should be a higher price because someone volunteers to be paid rather than to join the Army, the Air Force or the Navy. We can consider the matter in Committee.

Mr. Best: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bermingham: No, with great respect; I would rather move on.
Clause 2 concerns me considerably. I make exactly the same point about clause 4, but we can analyse it later.
I ask the Minister, before the Bill goes into Committee, to look again at clause 6, which concerns the right to re-examine a sentence. It removes the power of reconsideration of sentences of imprisonment or detention provided by section 114 of the Army Act 1955 and of the Air Force Act 1955. The power of review is useful because often when sentences are imposed people feel that perhaps they are not right. Perhaps that could be reconsidered before the Bill goes to Committee.
I have already made a point about clause 13. I concede that only four cases were involved last year, but an important step has been made and I welcome it.
All that I have sought to say can be encapsulated in a simple phrase. Every five years we are allowed to reconsider forces discipline. Time moves on, and just as Mr. Justice Lewis's report in 1946 dealt with the composition of courts martial, in 1985–86 it is right that we should reconsider in depth forces discipline. In 1986 are we to say to men and women, "Because you have chosen to serve the country in a certain way, you must be subject to penalties which we do not seek to impose and punishments which we do not seek to give to others who serve the country in other ways."? Surely justice should be the same for all who serve, regardless of where they serve.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am the fifth consecutive lawyer to speak in the debate. The Committee will be a collector's piece, as and when it comes. For those

who have nothing else to do during December 1985 and the early months of 1986, it will indeed be a memorable occasion.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) is wrong in his approach to discipline in the forces. He does not fully understand the commitment to discipline which is an inherent part of the life of those who serve in the armed forces. Those who volunteer know exactly what they are doing, and they take pride in their discipline. It would be wrong to think that they resent or should be resenting discipline as something which is imposed on them in excess of the discipline imposed on citizens. We can undoubtedly return to that point in Committee.
I listened with particular attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He is always thoughtful and thought-provoking. However, I disagree with three main points that he made. First, he criticised the Government for not exposing through a White Paper the prospective or potential emergency powers which might be required in a state of emergency. We can take pride in the fact that we have peace, because we have the armed forces which enable us to remain a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We can also be confident in the continuation of peace and in the fact that it is not necessary for us to expose this country to the emergency powers which might be necessary should we be subject to attack or internal emergency. Therefore, I take pride that it has not been necessary for the Government to produce a draft emergency powers White Paper.
I also take issue with the hon. Gentleman about representation at courts martial. His view derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which the courts martial system and armed forces operate. Nowadays men in the armed forces are not trained at Dartmouth for flag rank. The training is now given at each stage. In the Navy each sub-lieutenant is trained as a lieutenant, each lieutenant as a lieutenant-commander, and so on. It would be wrong to imagine that a non-commissioned rank who has not been trained in the specific duties of serving on a court martial could serve as a full member of a court martial. Moreover, there are many so-called "offences" for which a man can be court-martialled. An officer in the Royal Navy can be court-martialled for hazarding his ship. Is it suggested that non-commissioned ranks should serve on the court martial of the commanding officer of a ship who has been charged with hazarding that ship? The hon. Gentleman is thinking along the lines of having non-commissioned ranks present at courts martial to act as some sort of employees' or workers' representatives. That is not sensible.

Mr. Bermingham: Is it wrong that, for example, someone who works as a cashier in a supermarket should sit on a jury trying a man who has defrauded a large business as its managing director? No one would question that. Why should an ordinary seaman with plenty of experience not be allowed to serve on a court martial trying an officer?

Mr. Viggers: I return to my initial point. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the wholly different system of discipline which operates and needs to operate in the armed forces, and in which those who serve take pride. It is not possible to equate the two examples.

Mr. Hind: Perhaps I could draw a good analogy. Does my hon. Friend agree that often in the trial of major fraud cases in Crown courts a jury of ordinary citizens flounders among the miasma of accounts and paper work? Does that not demonstrate that the jury system may not be as strong as it needs to be? Likewise, a man who has never been in control of a ship is not as well equipped to judge a superior officer who is charged with putting a ship in danger as a man who has controlled a ship. Bearing that in mind, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As many hon. Members wish to speak, I prefer not to take it further now. We shall have ample opportunity in Committee to consider the point ad nauseam.
The third point on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North relates to homosexuality and its effect on discipline should there be a relaxation in the present services rule. I cannot conceive of homosexuality being allowed within service establishments without it having a profound effect on discipline. That is another matter that we can undoubtedly discuss in Committee. No doubt one's view derives substantially from one's own approach to that subject generally.
Not one hon. Member has opposed Second Reading of the Bill. The main purpose of the annual discipline Acts has been to enable the Executive—previously the King—to have a standing Army. It is clearly no longer necessary for us to have annual debates to decide whether we should permit the armed forces to be maintained year by year. Therefore, from a legislative point of view, it is no longer necessary for us to have annual debates on the subject, although I note that a statutory order needs to be passed every year. Therefore, Parliament will not lose control.
The main reason why one might hesitate before voting for Second Reading is that it may affect parliamentary control. We can be reassured on that. There is a tradition, not a rule, that each year the House will have one day for a full debate on each of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. That has given hon. Members sufficient opportunity to contribute on a broad range of subjects relating to the armed forces. Therefore, I do not see that by passing the Bill and depriving ourselves of a full debate on discipline on the Floor of the House, we will lose any control. For that reason, I support Second Reading.
I could make many other points, but they are Committee points, and there will be ample opportunity to discuss them there. Therefore, without further comment, I support my right hon. Friend in approving Second Reading.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am not a lawyer so I will give a different perspective to this issue. My experience of military discipline is more dated than that of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I was a military policeman and I have had some experience of military discipline and courts martial. I should have thought that the aim of the Bill was the introduction of a reasonable and fair service disciplinary procedure which accords with the requirements of military discipline. I welcome the Bill, but with serious reservations. It may meet the perceived needs of senior military officers, officials at the Ministry of Defence and Ministers, but what of the expectations and needs of service men?
Clause 11 reduces the lower age limit from 17 years to 15 years for male offenders upon whom a court martial may impose a custodial order. I have serious reservations about that and agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The military ritual and procedure of a court martial is intimidating even for the toughest veteran let alone a boy of 15½. The court martial is entirely different from a hearing in the sheriff's court in Scotland or in a similar court in England and I am glad that that point was made so eloquently by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
The Select Committee of 1981 on the Armed Forces Bill said on the issue of courts martial and young people in paragraph 7, page V:
One source of concern to the Committee however, was whether a court-martial, in sentencing a young offender in this way, would enjoy as full an understanding of the background to the offender's case as a civil court.
That is a serious qualification. The Committee went on to say:
We appreciate the Services' view that reports by social workers on young Service offenders can be superfluous".
That can be said of any social worker's report for any court. The report continues:
since within the intimate confines of a unit everything relevant about those offenders would be known to their commanding officers.
I do not share the Minister's confidence in the omnipotence of commanding officers, even in small units. Young military offenders need more comprehensive guidance than can be offered by officers. The senior non-commissioned officer has a major role to play. The report says:
At present, there is an obligation for the prosecution under Army Rules of Procedure to call an officer as a witness whenever possible to give evidence to a court martial about an accused's social background, etc. This officer can make use of the work of professional social workers in preparing his evidence, although it is not incumbent upon him to do so. A safeguard exists against such an officer being in any way negligent in the preparation of his evidence in that the court can be adjourned pending more complete social knowledge of the accused.
Although my experience is severely dated, it was that the sergeant or the company sergeant major has a greater understanding of battalion life than a young officer who has recently joined the regiment. That is no criticism of the officers. However, senior NCOs, and I stress senior, have an important role to play.
Senior NCOs could act as witnesses, especially for the very young soldiers who will come within the Bill's scope. In a court martial trying young soldiers it would be helpful to have a senior NCO sitting with a judge advocate and three or four officers. I am not suggesting that an NCO should be on a court martial of an officer—I am concerned only about young military offenders.
Another anxiety raised by the Bill is its seeming denial of legal representation. The National Council for Civil Liberties, has, I believe, sent every hon. Member a briefing, page 3 of which says:
At present there is no right to legal representation on summary trial. Some offences are dealt with by summary trial. Before a court martial, or before the court martial appeal court someone charged may defend himself or may be represented by a defending officer of his/her choice, or by a civilian lawyer.
The NCCL's criticism is that the defendant often does not see a lawyer until shortly before the court martial. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to that criticism.
The NCCL also criticises the rules governing the punishment of those who have become ill or have been


absent without leave. Why does such action lead automatically to imprisonment? Why can we not consider instituting financial penalties? Young men, especially if they have domestic problems, will sometimes decamp without seeking guidance from a senior NCO or officer.
We should also consider premature voluntary release. Contracts of engagement in the forces are for terms of three, six, or nine years. Like the NCCL, I believe that long-term engagement should not be made for people under the age of 18. Similarly, there should be more frequent opportunity of discharge and a review of the discharge machinery.
I have had some experience of questioning accused personnel, although I was no hard case. I would argue that I was Mr. Nice. I never interrogated but always interviewed people. When interviewing service men or women, military policemen are expected to observe the judges' rules and administrative directions to the police. Paragraph 3 of appendix B of those rules provides protection for accused persons and, under the heading "Comfort and refreshment", says:
Reasonable arrangements should be made for the comfort and refreshment of persons being questioned. Whenever practicable both the person being questioned or making a statement and the officers asking the questions or taking the statement should be seated.
My experience is severely dated, but I suspect that some of my colleagues ignored that rule. Paragraph 4 of appendix B applies directly to clause 11 and the court-martialling of boy soldiers of 15. Under the heading
Interrogation of children and young persons
it says:
As far as practicable children and young persons under the age of 17 years (whether suspected of crime or not) should only be interviewed in the presence of a parent or guardian or in their absence, some person who is not a police office and is of the same sex as the child.
I put it to the Minister that, under those circumstances, and if the judges' rules are to be adhered to, a senior NCO could play an important role when a youngster is being interviewed. Will the Ministry of Defence be drafting a code of practice under the legislation concerning the interrogation or interviewing of accused persons? If so, will all hon. Members be given an opportunity to examine that?
The Minister said in his opening speech that we seek a fair, firm and modern system of discipline. I agree that that is precisely what we need in the armed forces. I said earlier that I had serious reservations about the Bill but I welcome the procedure and the fact that a Select Committee is to be set up. It can scrutinise in depth the reservations that are shared by some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Harry Cohen: This is a narrow debate when we think of what has been happening in Geneva. Very little time is given in the House to debates on the nuclear arms race. In the future I may be able to place on record my views on that important matter.
The Bill deals with service discipline. If there were a nuclear war the disciplinary code would be largely irrelevant. In the panic and hysteria, Army discipline will be about widespread summary executions. After the bomb no one will be left. Cetainly there will not be a recognised command structure or the sort of discipline referred to in the Bill.
The Bill still allows the death penalty to be imposed in the armed forces. The same arguments in regard to the death penalty should apply to the armed forces as to society in general. There is a danger of an innocent person being executed. It is barbarous sentence. Cold-blooded state murder should not be countenanced by a civilised society. There is no place in our society for the death sentence, and that should include the armed services. The services are not so special as to be above the rest of us. They should not be immune from general laws nor should they receive punishments that are not applicable to the rest of society.
The Bill still denies to service men and women trade union representation. Everyone should have the right to join a trade union. That should be a fundamental freedom. The armed services are a closed shop where no one can join a union. Service men and women do an important job of work and workers need trade unions. Trade unionism has greater relevance to the armed forces because of their structure. There is a hierarchical direct line management structure which gives rise to great dangers of injustice. Trade unions are vital to the disciplinary process and to grievances being properly channelled. Service men and women should have someone they can trust to represent them.
Homosexuality in the armed forces has been raised in the debate. I want to draw to the attention of the House and the Minister an article in today's City Limits magazine.
The headline is:
Did Army cover up gay suicide?
The article says:
An ex-corporal in the British Army has alleged that a senior officer in Northern Ireland killed himself after being named as a homosexual. Corporal John Fanning claims that the officer involved was attached to the Military Police—whose plain-clothed arm, the Special Investigations Branch, is responsible for weeding out gays and alleged wrongdoers. … It was the SIB which was at the centre of allegations of malpractice during the recent Cyprus secrets trial. … Fanning claims the army hushed up the death. An inquest recorded a verdict of misadventure.
Corporal Fanning is a homosexual. Referring to his treatment by the special investigations branch the article quotes him as saying:
It all happened within hours. At 11 o'clock I was having tea, and at a quarter past I was somehow a monster with five legs and three heads.
The article says:
According to Fanning the officer"—
that is the officer who committed suicide—
was confronted by his own subordinates during the week of January 21. Then on Saturday January 26 the officer died while on a training exercise in the south of England.
There were mysterious circumstances. The article later says, in regard to Corporal Fanning:
'I was flown back to Northern Ireland and given a court martial. During the hearing all reference to the officer was deleted. I made a statement 80 pages long and only one and a half pages were read out.' He"—
that is, Fanning—
believes the officer committed suicide because, as a senior officer with a wife and family, he could not bear the disgrace of being named as a homosexual.
I hope the Minister will investigate that article and ensure that there was not a cover-up.
That raises the issue of bad treatment of homosexuals in the armed services. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the serious danger of blackmail. Some of us who have enlightened views on these matters consider that macho mateyness and Ramboism have distinct homosexual


connotations, albeit repressed. Much of that is inevitable in the armed forces. It probably takes place on a large scale.
It is time to stop the hounding of homosexuals by the special investigations branch. It should concentrate on more serious offences such as drug abuse and crimes of violence in the community and against fellow members of the armed forces. The hounding by the special investigations branch is contrary to civil liberties. It generates greater repression and fear among individuals. Homosexuality, if in private between consenting adults, should not lead to discrimination or disciplinary action anywhere, and certainly not in the armed forces.

Mr. Bruce George: I apologise for speaking in the debate when I was not present for the first three hours. I have a good excuse in that I have just returned with the Select Committee on Defence from a visit and was unable to be here for the earlier part of the proceedings.
Despite the sparse attendance, the debate is very important from a constitutional standpoint. The Bill is the lineal descendant of the epochal legislation following the Civil War and the Restoration, when Parliament tried to establish supremacy over the military. Supremacy was not achieved then. It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries that there was genuine parliamentary supremacy over the armed forces.
The Bill, and the Select Committee that is to be set up later, are part of the process by which we, as elected representatives, ensure that we control the internal discipline of the armed forces. The legislation is of critical importance not just in legislative-Executive relations or in civil and military relations but in the whole nature of parliamentary democracy.
If the Select Committee that is to be established takes the same form as the last one, of which I was a member, I shall not be entirely happy. That Committee was formed and the great enthusiasm for it lasted a week, after which it waned. At some meetings the Select Committee was barely quorate. On some occasions the witnesses outnumbered the Committee by four or five to one. I have never seen so many witnesses appearing before a Select Committee. On one occasion I counted 23. I do not think that it is right to have a sort of Select Committee procedure first, before examining such an important Bill line by line.
I shall not he diverted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who raised the question of homosexuality in the armed forces. A person can be thrown out of the armed forces for being homosexual, without having necessarily committed a homosexual act. It was fortunate for Macedonia and Rome that their great leaders were not barred in that respect, as British generals and privates would be. I am not arguing that being a homosexual should be a prerequisite for anyone holding the post of admiral or general, but there seems to be some correlation between sexual orientation and genius as a commander.
A good deal of nonsense emerges from debates such as this. I recall reading what General Westmoreland said in opposing the presence of women in the armed forces. He said that in a crisis they would be more likely to make love than war. I should have thought that being imprisoned in an NBC suit in a trench with a Russian T72 tank bearing down on one, would be anything but an aphrodisiac.
It was thought that the last Select Committee on which I served would prove to be very boring, but, far from being boring, we dealt with what I call the "Queeg phenomenon"—how to deal with captains who go bananas in the course of duty. We dealt with drug-taking, murder and homosexuality. Never has my liberal conscience been exercised so frequently to so little avail as in those proceedings.
My view may not be applauded by my colleagues, but I regard the quinquennial Select Committee, brought together merely to examine legislation of this sort, as an unfortunate procedure. The Committee should not be an ad hoc one that disappears almost as swiftly as it is established. I ask the Minister and the Leader of the House to remember that there is a Committee—the Select Committee on Defence—already in situ.
There are precedents for legislation of this type being referred to a Select Committee, but I do not think that the members of the present Select Committee should be the only people to have the privilege—if that is what it is—of sitting on the Committee. There are precedents for adding Ministers to a Committee. The further precedent could be set of adding an Opposition spokesman. My suggestion is that the illustrious Minister of State should join the Select Committee on Defence. It would be a classic case of a gamekeeper turned poacher, or vice versa.

Mr. Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when the Select Committee on Defence was set up the argument from the Liberal Bench was that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) should be part of it? He is not, and no alliance Member is on the Committee. Would the hon. Gentleman wish the Select Committee to proceed without having a member of the alliance on it?

Mr. George: The point that I was seeking to make was that the Committee should not consist only of the present members but that it should be added to. That would be better than the unsatisfactory procedure of having three sessions of evidence and then going through the procedure of an ordinary Standing Committee. Having seen the lack of enthusiasm for such a procedure, I can assure the hon. Member that it is not satisfactory.
I ask the House to consider my suggestion, for which there are precedents. I believe that if it is accepted, this vital piece of legislation is more likely to be dealt with in a manner commensurate with its importance.

Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak again.
I do not wish to follow too closely the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), except to say that I thoroughly disagree with him. He started by saying that it was an important constitutional matter of concern to all hon. Members. That is correct. Therefore, it is not a matter which concerns only the excellent Select Committee on Defence, with its expertise. All hon. Members should have an opportunity to take part in the debate. Defence is not simply a matter for the Select Committee on Defence, nor is it of interest only to the two main parties in this House. Every hon. Member has a right to be heard on this most important constitutional matter.
Nevertheless, I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting here in time for the debate. He was the only member of the Select Committee who was able to get here.

Mr. Neil Thorne: If we do not speak, that does not mean that we are not interested.

Mr. McNamara: With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), we do not want American law applying to British citizens. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 effectively removes foreign forces from British courts of law, even in regard to ordinary civil acts of wrongdoing.
Those are matters which will have to be considered in the Special Select Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South will volunteer to be the Whip for both sides of the Committee. Then we can assure ourselves of 100 per cent. attendance and an excellent relationship. In addition, as a Whip he will not be able to speak so much.

Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make the shortest wind-up speech that I have ever made on the Second Reading of a Bill. Hon. Members will understand that in the time available I shall not be able to answer all the points, but we shall be able to pursue them in detail in Committee. I will try to respond briefly to a few of them.
I did not cover in my opening remarks the provisions in service law governing homosexuality. The matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and several other hon. Members. It is an issue that we shall be able to discuss at length in the Select Committee. I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and other hon. Members—that this area of service law has to be seen first and foremost against the backcloth of the service environment. There are fundamental differences between the civilian and the service environment.
One of the key facets of the service environment is that service men in a unit must conduct themselves professionally, often in circumstances of high stress when

they have to be able to depend absolutely on their fellow men with whom they are in a professional relationship. There has to be absolute confidence and trust between them. I hope that hon. Members will ask themselves whether that sort of professional relationship, in operational circumstances, is compatible with the existence of active sexual relationships between certain members of a unit. That is a serious question to which hon. Members should address themselves.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) for what he said about pressing on with the work on the Victoria barracks. On his remarks about the Visiting Forces Act 1952, I commend to him the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on 19 December 1983, which spells out the legal implications extremely well.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) seemed to be under the impression that the judges' rules may not apply overseas. I assure him that service police are required to act, wherever they may be, according to the judges' rules. There is no foundation for the suggestion that they do not apply overseas.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) raised an important point about the make-up of the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that there is widespread interest on both sides of the House that has been reflected in the broad width of contributions from members of the Select Committee, my hon. Friends and from hon. Members who have chosen to contribute to the debate, although their interests are wider than purely defence matters. I believe that an ad hoc Committee is the appropriate way to proceed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Museum of London Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of this short Bill is to give the Government and the Corporation of the City of London equal shares in the funding of the Museum of London and in the appointment of members of its board of governors, following the abolition of the Greater London council. At present, the Government, the City and the GLC each contribute one third of the members of the board. As the House will recall, last Session the Government announced their intention to divide the GLC's share equally between the two other partners after abolition. It was not possible to make provision for those new arrangements in the Local Government Act 1985 which abolishes the GLC. This was partly because the Government wanted to make amendments to the Museum of London Act 1965 and to effect other repeals, neither of which could be done under the terms of that Act. Therefore, the Local Government Act provided for the transfer, from next April, of the whole of the GLC's share to the Government, as an interim measure. The Bill supersedes the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act before they come into effect, and amends the 1965 Act governing the Museum of London.
The Bill is being treated as a hybrid measure. Hon. Members will recall that that involves special additional parliamentary procedures. The procedures are already under way, and I have no reason to expect any difficulty. They do not affect today's Second Reading debate.
Before I deal in detail with the contents of the Bill, it may be helpful to remind the House of the history of the Museum of London. The museum had its origins in two long-established institutions—the Guildhall museum, primarily concerned with the square mile of the City, and the London museum, concerned with a much broader survey of London's history. The two museums were merged into one organisation on 1 June 1975 when the Museum of London Act 1965 came into effect. In December 1976, the present superb Museum of London building in the Barbican, specially designed to accommodate the joint collections, was opened by Her Majesty the Queen.
The Guildhall museum was established in 1826 by the corporation as an adjunct to its newly revitalised library. It was to accommodate
such antiquities as relate to the City and suburbs".
The museum was, from the start, intimately associated with the archaeological investigations of building sites in the City. In 1966 the museum became a separate department of the corporation. In 1973 a full department of urban archaeology was established at the museum.
The London museum was founded in 1911, when the first Viscount Harcourt used private funds at his disposal to establish the museum at Kensington palace. Financial support was assumed by the Treasury in 1912. The museum was governed by Treasury minute and administered through a board of trustees.
After the second world war, closer working links were established between the two museums, mainly as the result of arrangements for the excavation of the City's war-damaged site. By 1960, it had become apparent that the premises in which the museums were housed were

inadequate. Negotiations began which had the object of merging the museums into a new and comprehensive institution to be devoted to the history of Greater London. The agreement eventually reached was formalised in the Museum of London Act 1965.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the present board of governors of the Museum of London, under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. Michael Robbins, and to the museum's talented director, Mr. Max Hebditch. Together they have contributed to an enormous amount to its successful development in the past 10 years, and have enabled it to become widely admired as a jewel in London's crown. It is fitting also to recognise that this would not have been possible without the tremendous support and encouragement of the Corporation of the City of London, to which we are all indebted, not least for the fine premises which the museum now occupies. We must build on this success and establish the statutory basis for the museum's development in the decades that lie ahead. The museum and the City welcome the 50:50 sharing arrangement and the clarification of the board's powers. The Bill has their support.
The Bill's main purpose is to share the appointment of governors and the funding between the Government and the City on a 50:50 basis. That is achieved by clauses 1 and 3. It also redefines the powers of the board of governors, for the sake of clarity and to bring them more into line with other modern museum legislation. That is the object of clause 2. I shall say more in a moment about the funding of archaeological services in London, which is covered by the new provisions in clause 4.
Clause 1 deals with the appointment of governors and provides that the Prime Minister and City corporation should each appoint nine, in place of the six currently appointed by each of the Prime Minister, the City and the GLC. There are transitional provisions to stagger the terms of office of the new appointees. Clause 1 supersedes the relevant provisions in the Local Government Act 1985.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I may have misread the Local Government Act 1985, but it would appear that this Bill seeks to change the original Museum of London Act 1965. However, decisions in relation to that Act were made during the passage of the Local Government Act. It was decided that the number of board members to be appointed by the Prime Minister would be 12, so that there was a 12 to six split. The rectification in this Bill seems to run counter to the decisions made in July this year, and the Bill does not refer to the fact that the Local Government Act 1985 provided a different balance of governors. Will the Minister clarify that point'?

Mr. Luce: The position is slightly confused by the fact that the Local Government Act 1985 included interim provisions that will not take effect until after 1 April next year. What we are seeking to do now, with the approval of the House, is to nullify the provisions of the 1985 Act which relate to the Museum of London after 1 April 1986. We are trying to alter a piece of legislation which in any event will not come into effect until 1 April. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that answer, I shall seek the leave of the House at the end of the debate to clarify the matter.
Clause 2 provides a fuller definition of the board of governors' powers, including its powers over property. It empowers the board to provide archaeological services and


to undertake archaeological investigations and research. All this is done by substituting new sections in place of the existing sections of the 1965 Act.
Clause 3 deals with the finance and provides that the Government and City should have an equal share in the main funding of the museum, in place of the current one third shares of the Government, City and GLC. Clause 3 supersedes the corresponding provisions of the Local Government Act.
Clause 4 enables the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to make grants to the museum to assist it in providing archaeological services, separately from the main funding of the museum. Clauses 5 and 6 and the schedule cover expenses, the short title, commencement and repeals.
I have already mentioned the new funding arrangements. The increase in the Government's share—equivalent to about £700,000 on the basis of the present year's main budget for the museum—will be met from the £17 million set aside for museums, which is within the £43 million of extra central funding for the arts in 1986–87 following the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils which I announced last week.
The Bill is also important for the future of rescue archaeology work in London. Of course, this work in London is not new. Perhaps archaeology was once thought to be of little relevance to the present, and could safely be left to the academics, but it is now an activity that engages the hearts and minds of many hundreds of people every year, young and old, many of them participating as volunteers. Archaeology is now seen as a way of knowing about and understanding how generations past used to live and work. It helps us to understand better how and why we got to where we are now. We excavate, record, conserve and learn.
Of course, all of this does not just happen. Somebody has to inspire, organise and co-ordinate, and find the money. For the past three years London has been particularly well served. The Greater London archaeology service, based at the Museum of London, has done all these things and it has earned a high respect in the process. The GLC has provided the necessary funds and has also continued the important task of grant-aiding individual rescue archaeology projects.
We have never been in any doubt about the importance of any of this work. Equally, we have never been in any doubt that the abolition of the GLC should not in itself signal the end of the Greater London archaeology service. In this we have been supported by the Museum of London and the many professional bodies concerned. Not least, we have been supported by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. The commission needs no introduction to this House, and its commitment to archaeology is well known. It spends not only some £3.5 million in support of rescue archaeology projects in the country as a whole, but also some £2 million on the work of its own excavation unit and contracts to universities and museums for scientific and conservation work and the storage of archives.
The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is admirably well equipped to take over the GLC's involvement in and financial support for the Greater London archaeological service. It is a measure of the commission's commitment that it has readily agreed to

take on the task. We now have to give the commission the power to grant-aid the Museum of London, so that it in turn may ensure that the Greater London archaeology service continues. Clause 4, and the corresponding clarification of the museum's powers in clause 2, meet the commitment given by the Government during the debate on the Local Government Act. That commitment was that we would include an extension of the commission's power to grant-aid archaeology work so that it could grant-aid the management and establishment costs of the Greater London archaeology service at the museum. The commission's annual grant from next year onwards will reflect these additional responsibilities.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the GLC's contribution to the London archaeological service. Most Ministers find it hard to say anything nice about the GLC. I am intrigued about one aspect of the Bill. Clause 2 says that archaeological investigations and research can take place in Greater London and in the surrounding region. Can the Minister tell us how he sees the region outside Greater London? What is his definition of it?

Mr. Luce: My answer is probably right, but I am subject to correction. If I am wrong, I will try to put the matter right. In talking about the rescue service and specific projects, we are talking principally about the Greater London area as a whole. I will seek to clarify that at the end of the debate.
I hope that this rather full explanation of the purpose of the Bill has been helpful. The arrangements in the Bill are in the best interests of all concerned. The future of this excellent museum will be secure and its wide-ranging activities will continue to be of great benefit and value to all who live in, work in or visit our capital city.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am grateful for the opportunity to have another look at this Bill. The Minister is aware that the hostility to the changes in local government in London is not diminished by this kind of attempt to cope with the difficulties in which the Government have landed many institutions in the metropolitan counties and the GLC. The Bill takes effect from April onwards, and the initial provisions leading up to April, which were rather different, will be rescinded.
As my hon. Friends have said, the whole proposition follows inevitably from the political pique with which the Government behaved towards London over the past two years leading up to the abolition of any proper government for the city. This attempt to deal with the situation is fraught with at least two major dangers. The first is that it almost entirely liquidates any kind of democratic control over the appointment of the governors of the Museum of London, certainly in relation to the people of London.
The previous structure fully recognised the nature of the museum. The old Guildhall museum was about the City of London. The combined museum was certainly that, but it was also a developing museum dedicated to the life, the work and the background of the people of London as a whole. In their wisdom, the Government have decided to wipe out London in that sense and also in the sense of the City's understanding of itself as a community with its own democratic government.
The three-way division between the GLC, the Government and the City of London, was a generous


recognition of the historic role of the City of London. Rather than the recognition that it was an area which could provide the best kind of governance for the museum, it was more or less a recognition of the peculiar and particular concept of the City which is so strange to people outside this country. This strange body, with all its medieval rites—and perhaps rights as well—is not necessarily the best body to look after the total museum. It is said that it is not necessarily remaining in the mists of antiquity, but is somehow representing the more recent life of the City.
We now have the extraordinary position that the people of London, through their democratic representatives, have no say on the board of governors of the City of London. It is left to appointments by the Government and by this curious body, the City of London. I come from north of the border, and I find the concept of the City of London as strange as do people from New Zealand, Equador or Australia.
I have carried out a little homework on the subject. The City is the last place in Britain that retains the archaic form of voting and representation that we used to call the business vote. There were long fights to establish the principle of one man, one vote, but we do not have one man, one vote in some of our institutions. At least in a democracy we have achieved that, but the same does not apply to the City.
The Corporation of London is unique among municipalities for its constitution, its 800 years of history and its somewhat exceptional powers and activities. It is composed of a mayor and commonalty and the citizens of the City of London. It is governed by the Court of Common Council, which consists of the lord mayor, 24 aldermen and 136 common councilmen.
It is a deliberative body and also a legislative assembly, and it can remodel its own constitution—which is more than the GLC can do. Aldermen are elected by ward motes. I am an old Anglo-Saxon scholar and I rather like that system of motes. It would be rather attractive if it could be extended to other areas. However, nobody can vote for a person unless he is already a freeman of the City. It is a curious situation that this body, which is to have a half say about the Museum of London, has 4,600 residents, and they will elect a council which will nominate governors. It also has 10,330 non-residents—the business vote. That is a ratio of more than two to one. Thus, the possibility of any democratic expression coming from the people living in the area is removed by the fact that the non-residents carry the bulk of the vote. That will be the new governance of the Museum of London.
There are ways of dealing with this matter. I am the last to try to destroy all historical vestiges. I believe that the concept of one third three times is too much and that we should have a small number of nominees to represent the ancient prerogatives and all that go with them. There are ways of dealing with the problem which could involve the people of London. They could be adopted during the unhappy, though short, future period until we return to power and restore proper government to London.
It was suggested in Committee on the Local Government Bill that ILEA could do the job. That idea was discarded, partly with contempt, when it was said that ILEA could not possibly speak for the people of London because it did not cover the whole area of London. We were told that important activities were provided for the benefit of the London region, the home counties and the hinterland which extended well beyond the boundaries of

ILEA's jurisdiction. In other words, the responsibility could not be given to ILEA because it did not cover the whole of London or the hinterland.
It seems, however, that responsibility can be given to the City of London—at any rate, that half the governors can come from the small area of the City. That is nonsense. In Committee on this measure we should look again at the ILEA concept in this respect. As it is the nearest approach—it will also be an elected body from April—to a representative body for the people of London, and as it is integrally involved in the subject of the museum—the educational task of digging, recording and learning—it could fulfil the representative role in relation to the museum. Indeed, I cannot imagine a better definition of the process of education than to dig, record and learn. I hope, therefore, that we shall continue to consider ILEA as the representative body for the museum.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we are to involve everyone in the running of the museum, logically we should have representatives of tourists and representatives from my constituency, which is in the home counties, and all sorts of other people? It is important to have an efficient system—one that represents the bodies that are providing the finance—and then allow the museum to do its work, which it does admirably.

Mr. Buchan: Nobody has argued that everybody should be represented. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would take it amiss if I, from Glasgow, said that I wanted a say in the running of the Museum of London. I have said that running it should be a body that is representative of the people of London and that generously extends its activities to the home counties and the people who live there, such as the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and the hinterland.
We must strike a balance between having effective and democratic boards. We must have representative boards, but boards that can function. That is why I suggest that to achieve that the necessary appointments could be made to the ILEA.
If, as the Government said in Committee, we must pay due regard to the importance of the museum stretching its activities throughout the London region, we must consider some of the existing boroughs. Let us not forget that, in discussing the Local Government Bill, we were told that the GLC was being scrapped because it was an undemocratic body. It was to be replaced, we were told, by a marvellous democratic structure of the individual boroughs and district councils of London.
Here the Government have an opportunity to put their actions where their mouth is and involve some of the boroughs and districts. Those bodies could be asked to choose from among their members those who would represent the boroughs and districts. There would be no difficulty, except political pique, in doing that. It would be eminently sensible for the Government to do that, remembering that under the Local Government Bill the structures will be changing. I trust that that will also be examined in Committee. Our first complaint, therefore, is that the body that has been selected is not properly representative.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the essential point that I raised. It is the Museum of London, not just for London. There are many thousands


of people from all parts of the United Kingdom, and further afield, who benefit from learning about the history of London. The hon. Gentleman is not getting the balance right.

Mr. Buchan: I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman moving amendments in Committee to get people from the hinterland and other areas round about on to the representative body. If he makes such a proposition, he will get a sympathetic hearing from my hon. Friends and me. We have here a Daniel come to judgment. Of course, it is not only a Museum of London, to be visited only by the people of London; people come from far and wide to learn from it.
If the Museum of London is to serve a purpose beyond those who live in the immediate area—and Greater London is a large area—we must consider another matter that is not dealt with in the Bill but which was raised in Committee on the Local Government Bill—namely, how free the museum will be in its actions on behalf of the people of London and the general public from near and far who visit it.
May we have a guarantee—I understand that in the past it has been left solely to the trustees; this has applied to museums and galleries—that the governors will not impose admission charges to this museum? Will the Government heed the advice of their supporters and not allow admission charges to be made?
We need to explore this question because the Government's record of admission charges at museums, galleries and some other national institutions has not been good, any more than the funding has been good. After all, the National Gallery had to be rescued by an American millionaire and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, because of a shortage of funding, had to be rescued by a £10,000 anonymous grant.
The Government are bringing shame on our national cultural institutions. It will help to redeem our honour if we say that no admission charges will be made at this museum, despite the fact that half the governors will come from the City of London. Indeed, their presence on that scale makes us fearful, for it represents the apotheosis of the cash nexus, and we fear that money will be valued more greatly than the establishment itself.
I stress that point because we have experience of what happens when charges are made. Curiously, the best example of that occurred at the Victoria and Albert museum. When the Prime Minister imposed admission charges—they were originally called voluntary charges; it was described as permissive legislation—certain changes in attendance came about at the Victoria and Albert. In January 1973, 91,000 people attended. In January 1974, in the first month of charges, the attendance figure dropped to 58,000—a fall of 36 per cent. In February 1973, 107,000 people attended. In February 1974, in the second month of charges, attendance dropped to 52,000—a collapse of 51·6 per cent. In March 1973, 130,000 attended. In March 1974, 66,000 people visited the Victoria and Albert—a collapse in attendance of 49 per cent.
Against that background, when we hear Conservative Members talk about the responsibilities and duties of the board of governors and the need to achieve a good board,

we are concerned to avoid the portcullis of admission charges being imposed on this museum, be those charges so-called voluntary or otherwise.
I have spoken of some of the matters that we shall be discussing and pressing the Government about in Committee. I shall not ask my hon. Friends to vote against Second Reading. We recognise that this legislation flows from the far worse legislation on local government in general. As decent democrats, we shall consider this to be a consequence of that earlier legislation and try to rescue from the wreck something healthier in terms of the governance and funding of the Museum of London.

Sir David Price: Whether hon. Members share the view of Shelley that
Hell is a city much like London
or whether they prefer the alternative view of Dr. Johnson that
When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life",
the importance of London in our nation's history can neither be denied nor exaggerated. I hope that the House will agree with a definition made by a former Member of the House, Benjamin Disraeli, when he described London as
a nation, not a city".
London is our nation, and whatever part of the country we represent we are all Londoners. That is why, as a Hampshire Member of Parliament, I am happy to intervene in the debate.
The Minister said that the need for the Bill arises as a consequence of the abolition of the GLC. Under the Bill one of the three godfathers—or perhaps, in theatrical terms, one should call them "angels"—will be removed. It would be logical to close ranks and to concentrate on the two surviving "angels". However, following the points made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), I should like to ask the Minister why the London boroughs have not been given a place among the governors of the Museum of London. Is it Government policy in London and elsewhere that the metropolitan boroughs and district councils should take over the role of patrons of the arts, which hitherto has been fulfilled by the GLC and the metropolitan counties? I must declare an interest as I am a ratepayer in the City of Westminster. I hope that the Minister will reply and say why that option was rejected. The proportion of their representation among the governors should not necessarily be a third, but at least the boroughs should have a presence.
I have a great regard for the Museum of London, as I visit it and respect it well. I hope that all hon. Members who have visited the museum will agree with the accolade offered to it in 1982 by Kenneth Hudson, who said:
The museum is now generally regarded as one of the finest city biography museums in the world".
Anyone who has been abroad and seen museums that purport to be similar would agree with that accolade. The Museum of London should be regarded not only as a fine city museum but as a national museum, and it is proper that there should be a financial arrangement between the local authorities in London and central Government.
We can argue about the precise balance, and the Bill suggests that it should be 50 per cent each. All hon. Members will, I hope, agree that if, as I suggest, the London boroughs have a presence on the board of governors, they should make an appropriate financial


contribution. I suspect that the Minister expects them to do so, anyway. I hope that they will, although that is not written into the Bill.
We must consider how such a museum should be run. I offer the House the sound advice given to me a few years ago by the director of one of our national galleries, who said that any great gallery or museum has three main purposes. The first is to maintain and improve standards, especially that of conservation. Secondly, it should promote scholarship and, thirdly, stage spectacle. Obviously, the fulfilment of those three objectives—standards, scholarship and spectacle—interplay upon each other. The balance of resources devoted to each will not only vary from one gallery or museum to another but will also vary within the same institution from time to time according to current requirements. In any board of governers such as the board of governers of the Museum of London, professional qualifications in the three objectives that I have mentioned should be reflected in the people nominated by the representative bodies.
Professionally, it is important that people within a great gallery or museum should have among them people to whom they can look for a lead. I can think of many people associated with art, archaeology, architecture and history, both political and social, who would be delighted if they were invited to give their services. That suggests to me that the Government and the City of London must be imaginative in formulating whom they invite to join.
Professionalism should be present among the governors as well as democratic representation, and there is no quarrel between myself and the hon. Member for Paisley, South on that score.
I also submit that the duties of such governors, both corporately and individually, require certain other skills. There are three that the House should consider. The first is supervision, although that is normally the day-to-day task of the staff of any museum or gallery. But in a week in which we had the sad news of what happened to the Algardi terracotta bust of Cardinal Zacchia in the Victoria and Albert museum—I doubt whether even the hon. Member for Paisley, South would claim that it should be paid for by voluntary charges—that makes my point about the need for supervision.

Mr. Buchan: Had the museum administration perhaps been more sound, with only one man going up the ladder and one of the two people who sit at the damned cash boxes standing at the bottom, we might have saved that terracotta bust.

Sir David Price: The hon. Gentleman is stretching his well-known views somewhat beyond what even a bust would carry—and a terracotta one at that.
The second skill is the ability to select. As is often the case with all good things, we can write down a range of priorities which in an ideal world we can pursue to the ultimate, but at any moment in time selection and balance is required. That would allow us to bring together the professionals so that we can get the balance right.
The third is inspiration. The governors of any institution must be known not only to the staff but also to the public, and the staff and the public must look to the board of the Museum of London for such inspiration. I am an old-fashioned soldier in these matters and believe in leading from the front. Therefore, the governors have a duty not only to attend board meetings and to be available

in their own professions as scholars, but also to be seen and to be known. In effect, they are the embodiment of the museum. I hope that the bodies which appoint the governors will pay regard to those thoughts.
There are four outstanding problems facing the Museum of London. The first is the absence of a capital fund. On 21 October 1981, in evidence to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, the Museum of London said:
It should be noted … that the Museum of London Act makes no provision for the Board to raise capital. It would be necessary, therefore, either for one of the contributing authorities to take on this burden, or for the sum to be raised by appeal".
The museum repeated the point later in its submission when it said:
The capital and resource requirements are considerable. The Board have no power to raise capital and apparently little chance of persuading one of the contributing authorities to take on this function.
We should take the opportunity of the Bill to insist that, in one way or another, the museum should be equipped with capital-raising powers and, I hope, a capital fund. We all know that the ultimate masters in these matters are the Treasury mandarins. As it is early in the evening, I put no adjective in front of the words, but if it were later in the evening I could. The Treasury is never keen on capital because, as everyone knows, the Treasury mandarins are simple people, used to computer-based zero and one, and think purely in terms of cash flow—money going in and out. I have said before, and I repeat it about this issue, that the Treasury power is like having one's affairs run not by accountants but by book-keepers. The money is in and out on an annual cash flow. We must try to preserve the museum from the limitations of Treasury thinking, and equip it with some capital.
The second point, which comes out clearly in one report after another, is shortage of storage space. That again ties up with the size of building accommodation, but is itself a product of success because the more that a museum achieves, particularly with rescue archaeology, the more that it has to hand. The more that a museum is known and the more that the public institutions offer it objects the more obviously it has to have extra storage space.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is making a characteristically thoughtful contribution. Does he not feel that one of the problems in the museum service generally is that museums store far too much? Is there not an advantage in having a shortage of space because it makes museums far more selective in what they take, and perhaps forces them to display far more? Is it not a shame that there is so much hidden away in vaults that people never see?

Sir David Price: I agree with the hon. Member in part. We all know of galleries that have far too much hidden away when more should be on display. However, there is a grey area between what a museum obviously has to accept and what it obviously has to reject, and this particularly arises in rescue archaeology, out of which flow many representative objects. One does not wish to flood a gallery.
Let us take an example. In the British museum, those of us who are not experts on Greek pottery can still see an enormous number of Greek pots, but we do not necessarily want to see them all on display. However, the museum is keen to show them. I can see that in any gallery there is


a problem of a certain largesse de richesse; but since the objects are valuable, one cannot just refuse or dismiss them.
The national galleries gain enormous advantage from the system of loans to the provincial galleries. I do not know the details of what is in store in the Museum of London, or whether it can be loaned to other museums in the outer London area that could benefit. If this is the policy that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is advocating, I agree with it.
My third point is about the pace of rescue archaeology. I quote again from the report of the Museum of London. It says:
The pace of field archaeology is largely outside the Museum's control, in that it is determined by the state of the office property market and by other major developments such as gravel extraction and road construction.
In other words, it is difficult for a museum such as the Museum of London to plan its field archaeology because so much of it is rescue archaeology, which is determined by other people. The museum may have only a few months in which to do its work. It may have to move people from an existing project to get them on to a site on which they have only a short time for excavation.
Although this is a general problem, it is seen particularly vividly in the case of the Museum of London. I should be interested in the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Minister on this. I am glad that he is making arrangements for adequate financial support for rescue archaeology in London. Nevertheless, it is difficult to plan properly, given the uncertain nature of what has to be done.
My fourth point flows from my third. The recording of change in London life should also be contemporary. I again report from the museum's literature. It says:
changes in other less publicised areas of London life are taking place which will lead to the obliteration of evidence of how London is now as completely as new office blocks will destroy the remains of the Roman period. At the moment, the only official provision to record the changing face of London, apart from the work of the Museum itself, is the recording of architectural monuments through the Royal Commission and the Historic Buildings Division of the Greater London council. That is the state that rescue archaeology was in fifteen years ago.
I have already discussed with my hon. Friend the Minister the example of the move of the old Covent garden market to the Nine Elms site. I have been told that the architecture is well documented but that the Department has not had the resources to get down the impressions of the people who worked and traded there. Such social history is most important and, with tape recorders, relatively cheap to record.
Another market moving has been Billingsgate. The old one has gone and we know from our experience with the Covent garden market that the environment and the atmosphere of the new market are different. Such things should be recorded, and it is relatively cheap so to do, but, because of lack of staff and resources, they are not so recorded.
I leave my four points, about the absence of the capital fund, the shortage of storage space, tying up with loans to other galleries, the pace of rescue archaeology, which makes planning difficult, and the recording of contemporary changing of London life, with my hon. Friend the

Minister. I have detained the House too long, particularly for a Hampshire Member. I have said enough. I wish the Bill well, and the Museum of London even better.

Mr. Clement Freud: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having called me, although I am aware that you have little choice.
I welcome the Minister to his first arts debate. These are rare occurrences and perhaps I should remind him that the fact that there are not double figures of attendance is not unusual. On the last occasion on which we had an arts debate, which was conveniently held on the day of the European elections, the Government suffered a humiliating defeat, by two votes to one, but went on governing none the less.
I listened with interest to the speeches made by the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). I share the concern about charging for museum entrance and I was much taken with the sensible remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh about governing museums, although I am not sure whether ultimately some of the work that he prescribed for the governors is not best done by the curators. However, I shall not take up the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The Bill is necessary to tidy up a small part of the chaos created by the abolition of the GLC, and it has three main elements—the composition of the board, the finance of the museum, and the archaeological services. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have legitimate concerns about all three of these points.
It is proposed to change the board's composition from three parts of six members to two parts of nine members, representing the City and the Prime Minister. What is predominantly wrong with that is that it increases the Prime Minister's patronage, and I think that she has quite enough power already. It could well serve to exclude the genuinely popular base that the museum has worked to cultivate. It includes no formal recognition of the legitimate interests of London as a whole in its own museum.
The museum has a constituency of about 8·5 million Londoners. They cannot be subsumed into the City or whomever is selected by the Prime Minister. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, in Committee on the Local Government Bill, when arguing against the inclusion of the Inner London education authority on the board, which the ILEA would in fact have been unpleased to accept, claimed that the activities of the museum went far beyond those of ILEA. I do not believe that that point is adequately catered for by the proposals contained in the Bill. Further, I do not see how that proposal fits in which the Government's announced desire to devolve power to the boroughs as part of the reason for abolishing the GLC. We all know the reason why the Government wanted to abolish the GLC, and it was not that.
Above all, the GLC's abolition severs all formal relationship with the whole of Greater London, and I believe that an alternative is needed which will protect that status. Even if the proposals on composition are to stand, the question of how the nominees will be selected remains.
What the hon. Member for Eastleigh said was important. Not only people who have a knowledge of selection, history and archeology are needed, but also people who can stand up to the Government and argue, and


people who have financial knowledge, perhaps divorced from all specific museum knowledge. I should like to know whether they will be chosen as members of a larger constituency. What is more important, how does the Bill ensure that the museum continues to work for the whole of London?
On finance, the Bill proposes a change from equal one third shares from each group represented on the board to equal halves. During the interim, the City has been contributing one third to the Government's two thirds. The Government's share comes from the Office of Arts and Libraries and will come from the money pledged to help replace what disappears with the GLC. I heard what the Minister said, but I want him to say clearly whether that is new money or whether that £700,000 was considered in the ball park figure for museums, or was it merely taken out of that general figure when it was realised that the Museum of London would need such an amount of money? Will the Minister tell me whether the City can afford that 50 per cent? Has it told the Minister that it can do so? What is the 50 per cent half of? Will it be half of whatever sum the board deems to be necessary, or will the board be able to budget for only twice what the Government decide as its figure?
I believe that museums need stability of funding, and am not sure that under the suggested formula it will get it. What type of financial security is the Minister promising, given that the amount to cover for abolition is set to decrease over the coming years? The proposed set-up is potentially damaging to the idea of accountability and the system of local attachment that existed before.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is not for me to come springing to the Minister's defence, but in a way, the procedure whereby the Museum of London has been funded up to now was unsatisfactory because it had three bodies. The two always came in at the lowest bid, which would be the bid of the third. That was unsatisfactory for the Museum of London. It did not have the certainty over its funds that it should perhaps have had.

Mr. Freud: If one brings forth new legislation, one might bear in mind how unsatisfactory was the previous legislation and try to do better.
I understand that having only two partners could be fractionally better than having three, but I am still not convinced that asking the City of London to pay 50 per cent. is meaningful in the way that it is phrased.
The proposals are at odds with the Government's professed handing down of powers and responsibility to the boroughs where we were told they belonged. What are the provisions in respect of the museum's capital needs? If the Liberal party's alternative on the composition of the board were to materialise, we would make the appropriate adjustments to the funding. We believe in a relationship between taxation and representation. The hon. Member for Paisley, South talked about that. When he talked about one man, one vote, he clearly forgot what went on in the trade unions of which he is so fond. I should have thought that that would have been a strong argumemt for keeping quiet.
I wish to talk about archaeology, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pressed the Government several times during the passage of the Local Government Bill. He was worried that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission,

to which the archaeological service seemed destined, was unsuitable because it was new and untried and designed to fund projects rather than organisations.
As I understand the Bill, the archaeological service will go to the Museum of London and the HBMC will be allowed to make grants to it under conditions chosen by the commission. Several questions arise. Is the HMBC to pay for all the unit's work, only specific projects or only those bits that it chooses? What will become of the permanent nature of the unit which is now intimately linked with the museum's entire work? Will that be adequately maintained? If the HMBC is not intended to pay for all the unit's work, presumably the rest is supposed to come from the extra Government money that we heard about last week. How much will that double earmarking leave for the rest of the museum's work? Was that extra cost taken into consideration when the extra money was being allocated? There are currently about 100 archaeologists employed by the unit. Will that substantial and respected organisation be adequately provided for by the Bill? What conditions will be attached to the grant? How long term is the deal?
We are seeking more information and substantial guarantees that the museum and the archaeological unit will not be casualties of the chaos following the GLC's abolition. It should be remembered that the GLC intervened in the case of the archaeology unit in 1982 only because there was erratic funding from other sources which could not sustain it with certainty.
London is said to have one of the best archaeological presences of any capital city. That must be sustained. We are interested in retaining the regional links that the museum has had by virtue of its board and funding. That has been essential to its nature.
The Minister said that the museum is secure. Over the years we have heard from the Government that the National Health Service is safe with them.

Mr. Michael Colvin: And it is.

Mr. Freud: They have said that the arts need not worry. I had a maternity hospital at Wisbech, in my constituency. The Minister for Health came to my constituency and said that the maternity hospital was safe. After the election it was closed.
I hope that the Minister, whom I wish well, and for whom I have great respect, will write to me on some of the points that I have mentioned and will remember that, all in all, museums need endowments and guarantees of secure financial provision rather than enthusiasm on a Monday which wanes on Tuesday and disappears at the end of the week.

8 pm.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) claimed after my interventions that I accepted his argument, and therefore wanted a wider range of governors. Had he listened less selectively, he would have realised that logically my reasoning still pointed to the opposite as more realistic. I repeat for the hon. Gentleman's benefit that it is the Museum of London and not the museum for London. Home counties visitors, such as those from my constituency, would prefer effective management as the criterion rather than artificial geographical appointments.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South once again dogmatically criticised admission charges and cited the Victoria and Albert museum. In contrast, I should welcome such an approach, as exemplified by Sir Roy Strong, as a more realistic one. If it is to be the Museum of London rather than just for London, why should it not benefit from all its patrons, be they from home or abroad, to help ensure its future success?

Mr. Tony Banks: The museum is about London, which makes it perhaps more relevant for Londoners than other museums within the capital. When the hon. Gentleman is encouraging the imposition of charges, or voluntary charges, is he aware that the Museum of London runs a large education programme? It receives large parties of visitors from the area which he represents, as well as from inner London. It would be a disadvantage to have charges, voluntary or otherwise, as their imposition could very well restrict schoolchildren's opportunities to visit the museum.

Mr. Murphy: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in many charging schemes there are exceptions made for schoolchildren and the elderly. Such schemes often provide the opportunity free days. All these features should be considered. Anything that increases the finance that is available to safeguard our galleries and museums should be applauded by us all. Such matters should not become the subject of partisan and dogmatic arguments.
The Bill is further evidence of the commitment to the arts and heritage that has been so apparent since the Government came to power in 1979. Against a background of economic difficulty, the cultural sector has been well provided for. That should be appreciated fully rather than denigrated unfairly because of political malice.
Those who have visited the Museum of London will have been impressed by its dedication and its flair for giving London a unique historical perspective. It is a tribute to both the Government and the Corporation of the City of London that the importance of the museum is being reinforced and enhanced by the Bill.
I had the privilege recently of piloting a report through the choppy seas of the Council of Europe on the private sponsorship of the arts. Despite scuttling attempts by certain Left-wing would-be boarding parties, the recommendations gained safe haven although squalls continued beyond the harbour. Saint Saens once said:
Art is a mystery—something which responds to a special sense, peculiar to the human race.
That is equally the case with the appreciation of the heritage. The Museum of London is a part of that appreciation, together with its excellent archaeological services.
The report which I presented to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe surveyed the value of private sponsorship and the increasing significance that it can and should achieve. My recommendations called for greater encouragement of private sponsorship. Europe would do well to follow the lead of the Government, my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessors.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of his recommendation of greater private sponsorship and has congratulated the Government on their performance—a

Government who are beginning to accept private sponsorship as a replacement for proper public funding and not as an adjunct to and support of it. Last week's statement on the funding of the arts was a disgrace. The Government's proposals are about £25 million short of what the Arts Council said that it needed and about £19 million short of what was needed to replace the moneys made available by the metropolitan counties and the GLC. In terms of central overall funding, they represented a 16 per cent loss. There is no great merit in increasing private subsidy percentage by percentage if we are allowing the basic fabric of our national institutions and the rest of our culture to decay under the cuts that they are suffering under the hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Murphy: I regret that once again the hon. Gentleman seems to be using his selective hearing. Surely he has heard, as I have, many Ministers say that there is such a thing as plural funding. I understand that that is what my hon. Friend the Minister wants to see for the arts and heritage. I recall from statements made to the House that the Government's spending on the arts has increased in real terms. That should be the subject of congratulation and not criticism.
I have referred to the report I piloted through the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, and the hon. Gentleman should be aware that some of his colleagues who sit on the Labour Benches in this place voted at one stage in favour of the report and later were against it. There is a necessity for some of his hon. Friends to get their thinking straight on this important subject for the sake of the arts and the heritage. I am sure that he will take these points on board in the friendliest fashion.
The City of London holds a unique place in both British and world history. It is one that is told effectively by the Museum of London. The City of London holds a unique place also in both British and world finance. It is one that is clear with respect to commerce and business, often the very companies that are providing vital sponsorship.
In supporting the Bill, I do so in recognition of the continuing value of museums such as the Museum of London to the cultural life of the country and to its economic life in terms of the tourist industry. In supporting the Government in their arts and heritage policies, I do so in recognition that a fair wind has been created that is far more realistic than the unwarranted and continual hoisting of storm cones by Opposition parties.

Dr. John D. Blackburn: I offer my sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister on his new appointment. His baptism was enshrined in a fine presentation of the Bill, a measure which on sober reflection will, I am sure, eventually be welcomed by those on both sides of the House.
I shall refer to two statements which have a great bearing and significance on and to the Museum of London. My hon. Friend has related with considerable clarity the excellence of the paper that he presented in Spain. I am glad that the Government have recently signed a Council of Europe convention on the protection of the heritage. That is good news for the heritage, culture and the museum service. The European conference focused on ways in which the heritage could be protected and conserved. The purpose of this debate is to present that information to the public.
Last Thursday, as reported at column 702, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts announced that the Government would grant £43 million extra from the Exchequer to make up the shortfall caused by the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils.
I was especially attracted to the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), particularly his reference to the governing bodies. The Bill provides for the Corporation of the City of London to make nine appointments to the Board. Nine appointments are within the Prime Minister's gift, as outlined in clause 1. That is the way forward for this excellent museum.
I believe from my recent experiences in the museum that the Bill presents a tremendous opportunity to take a further step forward, especially with respect to archaeological rescue, research and display. I was privileged in the past two weeks to go to York where I saw an excellent display. I hope that the City of London will hold such an exhibition.
I am sad that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) bitterly attacked the City of London. It was not in keeping with the normally gracious and charitable way in which he presents the case for the Opposition. I am sure that in the depth of his soul he has as much love for Paisley abbey as I have. I hope that we can convert him to the beauties of the City of London.
There has been considerable debate on clause 3. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) referred to the long-term and short-term funding guarantees that should be given. I unashamedly say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I wish to associate myself with those remarks. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond.
Conservative Members have become dedicated disciples of the concept of funding for the arts by the private sector. It would be a privilege to see those items that are stored in the bowels of the museum, which the public hardly ever see. I believe that 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the exhibits are never put on display except in travelling exhibitions. I believe that certain items owned by the museum of London and the other museums could, with satisfactory security facilities, be put on display and be sponsored privately by companies and institutions. Excellent exhibitions have resulted from sponsorship of the arts by the public sector, as we have seen in Manchester.
I am sure that hon. Members have noted the new vision and enthusiasm in archaeology. One is almost tempted to use the expression "the industry" of archaeology. I do not represent London or the home counties, but I know that many of my constituents on visits to London are delighted with what they see in the Museum of London. Their visit is also educational. Recently, some archaeological work was done in the constituency which I have the honour and privilege to represent. Work has been conducted at Montgomery castle, Stafford castle and in the celestial town of Dudley at Dudley castle. I believe that discoveries in those areas could eventually find a place in the museum of London.
I wish the Bill godspeed. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East I wish the museum of London continued success. It is a jewel in our heritage.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Bill is yet one further consequence of the abolition of the GLC—not a matter of major significance, given the problems associated with abolition, but an important one. Clearly a number of hon. Members note the museum's significance in terms of London's cultural heritage. The Bill to abolish the GLC, which will mean the ending of nearly 100 years of citywide local government in London, was forced through Parliament to satisfy the Prime Minister's personal wishes.
I shall not allow the House to escape without hearing me say a few more words about the GLC's abolition, which is a subject about which I feel deeply. Abolition was opposed by all independent, objective and authoritative sources. More importantly, it was opposed, and remains opposed, by an overwhelming majority of Londoners.
In Britain today, with the elective dictatorship in full cry, such considerations count for nothing in the mind of the Prime Minister, whose vindictive response to the Labour administration at county hall is best summed up in the words of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who said on 14 March 1984:
The Labour party is the party of division. In its present form it represents a threat to the democratic values and institutions on which our parliamentary system is based.
The GLC is typical of this new, modern, divisive version of socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the GLC.
That is the truth of the matter. To base such sweeping changes in the structure of local government in England on an act of party political spite vividly reveals the depths to which the modern Conservative party has sunk.
The Bill represents one of the less traumatic consequences of the abolition of the GLC, but the same cannot be said for the overall impact on the arts in London. No one can accurately predict the scale of damage to the arts, but equally no one can deny that the arts will be the poorer for the abolition of the GLC.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) paid tribute to the Minister when he said that the Government had provided an extra £43 million from the Exchequer to take up the shortfall through abolition. That is not new money, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware of the fact.
It is not sufficient either, because the Arts Council estimated that about £44 million was required to replace all the GLC and metropolitan county council expenditure on the arts. The Government have offered £25 million. There is a £19 million shortfall. There is no way in which local authorities, either boroughs in London or districts in the rest of the metropolitan areas, will be able to make up that shortfall. They are penalised and many of them are rate-capped because they are Labour authorities. In the circumstances, one cannot be optimistic about the future of the arts following abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
The Minister and his predecessor have given more than they set out to give and we should be thankful for it, but we do not have to be grateful because that money will not replace that which is presently expended by the GLC and the metropolitan counties on the arts. We acknowledge that more has been provided that was previously envisaged, but one does not have to be grateful because a lot more than that has been taken away.
The arts in London are threatened by the abolition of the GLC. The threat runs from the GLC South Bank to


theatres such as the riverside, the Half Moon and the Theatre Royal, Stratford. Their future is fraught with dangers and uncertainties. Regional parks such as Burgess park and Mile End park are being developed by the GLC. There is no way that they will be completed by their respective boroughs of Southwark and Tower Hamlets because the resources are not there. After all, why should boroughs fund out of their own ratepayers' resources facilities that benefit the region as a whole? They will say that it is something for London as a whole and that London should pay for it. They will say, "How can we, with our scant resources, pay for facilities for the rest of London?" That is a natural human approach that any council would adopt when faced with the financial strictures imposed by central Government.
The classic example of the Government's irresponsibility with regard to abolition is seen in the confusion that surrounds waste disposal in London. Some might say that it is tangential to the Bill. If hon. Members spent more time going round the Museum of London, they would see exhibits showing the way in which the capital city's pattern of waste disposal has developed over the years. We owe a great deal to the Victorians in London for their foresight, skill and ingenuity. We have been living off that for far too long. What worries me is that we are squandering assets we inherited and not building on them. But that is another economic argument about infrastructure. From whatever point one starts, one can always come back to where one wishes.
All informed opinion inside and outside the waste disposal industry has paid tribute to the efficiency of the GLC's operation, one of the biggest and best in the world. However, 133 days are left until the sad demise of the GLC. I am sure that hon. Members will have noticed that we have put up a poster over County hall with the countdown to zero day. With 133 days left, we still do not have a satisfactory arrangement for waste disposal in London. Perhaps people will not be excited by that. It is not the sexiest of political issues, but it would be a matter of great concern to all of us if we found that there was chaos and confusion surrounding waste disposal.

Mr. Murphy: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there are two things that concern me that he does not seem to want to explain. One is that the abolition of the GLC was put clearly to the people of London, who helped to elect the Conservative Government. He seems to dismiss the democratic element, which I am surprised about. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman exhibits great concern, as I think we all do, about safeguarding the arts and our heritage in our capital city, yet pushes to one side the obvious means by which extra finance can be obtained—private sponsorship of the arts and admission charges. If we are all genuinely interested in safeguarding the arts and our heritage, we should look for other ways in which to bring in that finance. To help us, will the hon. Gentleman comment on both issues?

Mr. Banks: Of course. I do not believe that the abolition of the GLC motivated voters throughout the country to vote for the Conservative Government, so I do not see how the abolition of the GLC should be so central to the Government's programme, whereas the abolition of

the rating system, which the Prime Minister also pushed forward as a manifesto pledge in 1979, should be abandoned.
It must be made clear that abolition of the GLC is not supported by the majority of Londoners. All that we have said throughout is that, if the Government feel that the GLC is such a markedly unpopular institution, let the people of London decide at the ballot box. The hon. Gentleman may recall that there was nothing in the 1983 Conservative manifesto about abolition of the GLC elections, yet that was pushed through the House by use of the elective dictatorship. I cannot believe that many people in London would have voted for that if it had been spelt out in the Conservative manifesto.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to private sponsorship of the arts. As a former chairman of the arts and recreation committee of the GLC, I did not spurn the opportunity to get my hands on a bit of capitalist gold. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. Equally, I was realistic enough to know that it never could, and never will, replace disinterested public investment, sponsorship and financing of the arts. The hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues place too great store by the amount of money that the arts can raise through private sponsorship. It can be a top-up, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has said, it seems that many Conservative Members are beginning to see private sponsorship as the major source of funding for the arts, not just topping on the cake, as it were.
I could go on at great length and with increasing enthusiasm about the case to be made against the Government abolishing the GLC. Suffice it to say that anyone who claims that abolishing the GLC will improve the efficiency of local government in London or the quality of life of its citizens is either a bigot or a fool.
The most objectionable element in the Bill is clause 1, amending the Museum of London Act 1965. One of the veterans of the Committee on the Local Government Bill, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), wandered into the Chamber a little while ago. He heard some of the arguments and then quickly retreated, which was a pity, because we had a good debate in Committee. In Committee both the Labour and Liberal parties were agreed that the City corporation was not appropriate to represent the interests either of London as a whole or of democratic local government in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) spelt out some of our objections, and he could have mentioned many more of them. When the Royal Commission was reporting on the lead-up to the Local Government Act 1963 it said that logic had its limits and the City of London lay outside of them. It certainly does in local government terms.
My hon. Friend mentioned the business vote, which has been abolished everywhere except for the City, and aldermen, who have been abolished elsewhere in local government except in the City. Worse still, they are elected for life. If I had risen from my usual Back Bench position, to which I shall depart soon after my speech, and had maintained that GLC members should be elected for life, there would have been a hint of opposition from Tory Members. Clearly, the City is not the appropriate repository of responsibility for the Museum of London.
The museum is primarily concerned with the history of London and Londoners. If the corporation and the Government share the costs, there will be a natural


tendency for the definition of London to be narrowed towards the one square mile and its immediate environs, rather than expanded. Anyone who knows the history of London recognises that that one square mile is rich in history, but incomplete, if one wishes to show the history of the London area covered by today's GLC.
The presence of governors on the board, who are nominated by the GLC, has provided that essential Londonwide dimension to the affairs of the museum I well remember my first visit, as the chair of the GLC arts and recreation committee, when I commented on the lack of exhibits relating to the history of London's trade union movement. The director said that he thought I would raise that point. That is not good enough. Too often we ignore the history of the working class whose skills and suffering have provided the basis on which the enormous wealth of our City rests.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend pay warm tribute to the Labour History Museum which is doing an excellent job preserving the important records of the Labour movement? The sad thing about the working class is that, having spent a great deal of time acquiring their own records, they hide them away or allow them to moulder. Would it not be nice to get an input of state money for something as important as that?

Mr. Banks: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, especially when one considers the museums in London, such as the war museum, the natural history museum, the British museum and the science museum, and their resources. Why do we not have a nationally funded national museum of labour, because it is on the efforts and skills of labour that the wealth of the country is based? When, in two or three years' time, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South is the Minister with responsibility for the arts, I hope that he will remember this evening and ensure that funds are available. I am sure that we shall be present to remind him.
Since that visit, things have improved at the museum in respect of my criticism. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the director, Max Hebditch, and his staff, and particularly to the governors, whom the GLC nominated to it. They are Mr. John Gorman, Sir Ashley Bramall, Mr. Willie Bell, who is a solid Right-wing Conservative member of the GLC—we are ecumenical in that sense—Mr. Louis Bondy, Mr. Michael Wheeler, another Conservative member of the GLC and Mr. Richard Nicholls. When they have gone, will the museum slip back to its previous limited vision of London's history? Since Ministers will make the nominations, will the Minister tell me when he replies whether he will consider keeping on some of those governors, who have contributed so much to the museum?
If the museum is to be for the whole of London and to maintain links with the truly democratic structure of local government in London, governors should come from the broader local government structures of London, for example from the Inner London education authority. Indeed, is there any reason why they should not come from the two main borough groupings—the London Boroughs Association and the Association of Labour Authorities? The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said that the boroughs should be represented, and I hope that the

Minister will consider the views being put to him this evening, and that in Committee we can write them into the Bill. That is important, and we shall wish to press for it.
One of the more intriguing aspects of abolition has been the way in which the City corporation has been prepared to assume Londonwide responsibilities, almost as though it is trying to build insurance policies against the future. It is not yet settled which authority will assume responsibility for Hampstead Heath, but the City was at one stage keen to have it within its area of responsibility. The City has taken over the London Public Record Office, and, clearly, will take over the London end of the Museum of London. Recently, when, as chairman of the GLC, I addressed the Court of Common Council in the Guildhall, I remarked on how intriguing it was to see the City assuming Londonwide responsibilities.
The Opposition believe that the City, as it is presently constituted, cannot and must not be the voice of London. It is important to people in London because after abolition, London will be the only capital city in western Europe without a citywide administration and voice. The corporation is neither qualified nor authorised to speak for the boroughs and the 7 million people, as the GLC does now, however rich are its history and traditions.
I marvel at the City's ability to survive. One can learn many lessons from it, and sometimes I wish that we had learnt them at County hall. But the City knows that the abolition of the GLC threatens its long-term future in terms of its boundaries and structures. As the last chairman of the GLC, for the time being, I look forward to the day when I shall attend the great show of the new lord mayor of all London elected by a Court of Common Council, itself elected by a universal franchise of Greater London voters. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South suggests that he might be me, but he most certainly will not be me. I have had my work cut out during the past two years trying to keep things together at County hall, and I shall be glad to lay down that burden. However, I shall certainly look forward to the day when there will be a lord mayor who can speak for all of London, not for the few thousand people in the square mile.
That cannot be done on the present structure of the City of London, which is why this part of the Bill is so objectionable. When the Court of Common Council represents all 7 million Londoners and the lord mayor is the lord mayor of all London, the City will have fulfilled its historic destiny, which it repudiated on three separate occasions during the 19th century. The City managed to see off Mr. Gladstone, but I do not believe that it will see off Prime Minister Kinnock. We cannot accept that the City of London and the Government should carve tip the running of the Museum of London between them and, in Committee, we shall press for an alternative.
One sees clearly that the Government's share of the funding will go up by one third to one half and that increased Government financial support will come from the money earmarked for abolition costs. But will this money be fully earmarked? Will it be fully guaranteed? This money will come out of the £17 million provided for museums. Will the Government's contribution come out of the £17 million—the money that they spend now arid their share of the GLC—or only from what they are taking from the GLC? This is a nice point, but it is crucial to museums and art galleries throughout London and the


metropolitan county councils. I hope that the Minister will say that only the extra amount is to come out of the £17 million, and not the total Government contribution.
How will future moneys be settled? Will there be an annual settlement? Will the arrangement be similar to the present system when the Government and the City of London treasurers sit down and work out between them what they can afford? Whoever can afford to pay the least will effectively determine what the others pay. That is the way it works at the moment and that is why, in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), I said that it is an unsatisfactory arrangement. The arrangement has some weaknesses at the moment but the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the Bill gives the Minister the opportunity to improve matters, perhaps by introducing greater certainty regarding the funding of the Museum of London.
Can the museum expect to receive levels of funding similar to those currently provided by the GLC or will the Government be looking for some reductions?
I wish now to comment on a couple of points raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. The first is the absence of a capital fund for the Museum of London. Funding bodies just provided revenue grants to the museum. Not having a capital fund was a disadvantage. How many museums have capital funds at the moment? Where would they get the capital assets from?
The GLC wanted to endow museums and art galleries with a capital fund, but local authorities had enormous difficulties with their own capital allocations. We were able to increase the revenue grant to arts bodies but we always had a problem on the capital side.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the shortage of space. One reason for the shortage of space at the Museum of London is that it is an island site and there is little room to expand unless it moves into the Barbican. The Museum of London might have been better sited somewhere else, where there was room to expand, where the land was somewhat cheaper, where access was better and where the site was more central.

Sir David Price: In county hall.

Mr. Banks: It would be better used as a museum for London than as a hotel patronised by wealthy American tourists.

Mr. Murphy: That would bring in more money for the arts.

Mr. Banks: I do not believe that turning the South Bank into a hotel complex would bring more money into the arts. I do not think that tourists will keep coming to London to look at other hotels. We must try to preserve the arts that we have and not dismantle them, which I fear will be one of the consequences of abolition.
Museums tend to be greedy when it comes to storage space. They snap up items even if they do not have space to exhibit the material. There is probably more material not on display than on display. It is a matter of growing concern for people interested in the museum service.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh also mentioned oral history. The GLC had a wonderful exhibition at the royal festival hall at which we encouraged Londoners to record history on tape. There was a marvellous take-up by our

elderly citizens. They wanted to sit there and talk, and they produced a wonderfully valuable resource. Through the Minister, the Government should be prepared to devote far more resources to strengthening and developing oral history, because that is how to record the history of ordinary men and women, whether in the city or in the country. Our history tends to be about victories of great generals, kings and queens, rather than those who carried the burdens upon which those victories were built.

Sir David Price: I took the examples of Covent garden and Billingsgate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when asked what life was like when they were six or seven years old, elderly people tend to ramble? However, if the interviewer concentrates on an event or an experience, such as asking what it was like unloading ships with a hook and tackle, he will get a much more specific reply. That was my point, as, with such questions, much of the architecture and political history is recorded. It is social history of which we are so short.

Mr. Banks: The imperial war museum is good at that. One does not invite somebody to ramble on with a microphone under their nose but has skilled people directing an interview, because they know what information they are trying to get. Such a process produces enormously valuable historical information.
Most hon. Members will agree that some of the most interesting history is that recorded in diaries. Diaries written by ordinary people about day-to-day events are universally popular because we can relate to the authors far more than to massive battles and great state occasions of which few of us have much experience.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned Covent garden again. I hope he will pay due tribute to the GLC for its restoration of Covent garden. We saved it from the previous Conservative Administration which wanted to raze it to the ground and turn it into a national exhibition centre surrounded by six-lane highways. Covent garden is now one of the most thriving tourist centres in London. It might be getting a little too twee for my liking, but the GLC has managed to preserve it. Problems will arise with Covent garden as Westminister and Camden, two local authorities that are poles apart politically and ideologically, try to run it—another problem arising out of the abolition of the GLC.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. I am grateful for having been given this rare opportunity to have advanced so close to the Dispatch Box. I feel safer and more at home on the Back Benches and no doubt that is where I shall spend most of my life in this place. We do not intend to divide the House—I detect that we have not the necessary troops to do so—but we shall try to make several amendments in Committee.

Mr. Luce: I am encouraged by the two-hour debate we have had on the arts. Against the background of the Bill we have had a broad-ranging debate. Over only the past week I made a statement to the House last Thursday, I answered questions for 10 minutes to a packed House on Monday and now we have had this debate. That demonstrates the enormous interest that there is in the arts in general and in our culture. If I may repeat what I said, it goes far beyond day-to-day politics. The subject is of


fundamental importance to our way of life, our culture, heritage and history. As a new Minister for the Arts I have found the debate fascinating.
I do not want to reopen old wounds from last night's debate, but I do not think that it would have done Parliament any harm if this discussion had been shown on television. It might have been of interest to Londoners who will be affected by the Bill. However, I had better not go further on that, or I shall be in trouble.
There have been interesting speeches, not all of which I agree with, but all the points made are well worth taking on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) made a fascinating and thoughtful speech. I noted carefully what he said; I shall try to comment on some of the points and I shall write to him about the others. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) talked with great passion about the sponsorship scheme which could affect the revenue of the Museum of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) spoke, too, with great feeling about the Bill and about conservation in general. I am grateful to him for what he said.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred to two key points on which I shall comment in a moment. I must put the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) straight. I do not want to start a fresh debate about the Greater London council, but let there be no shadow of doubt that our commitment to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties was clearly stated in our manifesto of 1983. It is there, and stares me in the face. I will not read it to the House, but I want to put it firmly on record that the commitment is there. I shall try to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who takes a close interest in the arts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for Paisley, South were concerned about the composition of the board of governors and the structure that will govern the running of the Museum of London. I take the point that there is concern because we are eliminating the GLC element. I have been asked what the role of the successor authorities is to be. I have been saying consistently over the last few days that I look to the successor authorities to play a full and constructive part, in conjunction with central Government, in supporting and encouraging the arts.
I hope that what I say will be of help to the House. Against the background of the history of the Museum of London and its connection with the City, as well as its connection with a much wider area, it is obvious that we are dealing with a special institution. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield said that its interests went much wider than Greater London. I agree with that view. Therefore, it was necessary to take decisive action about its longer-term prospects.
The arrangements proposed in the Bill, which will allow the City to play a prominent part because of its long historical connection and which will also allow central Government to play a prominent role, are right. It would be difficult in addition to institutionalise the 32 boroughs into the longer-term arrangements. However, in the longer term I hope that the boroughs which are interested in the services provided by the Museum of London will feel able to play their part in providing additional funding. There is no reason why they should not do that. I am not sure

whether the hon. Member was suggesting that the 32 boroughs should be institutionalised into the longer-term arrangements.
I take seriously the views put forward about the composition of the board of governors. The point was made that it should reflect the interests not only of the City, which obviously the corporation will undertake with its nine nominees, but of greater London. The present board of governors is made up of a distinguished group of people. With the changes in composition, the breadth of experience and knowledge will cover a wider area than the City. The views of the community, which will no doubt be reflected in the successor authorities, should be taken carefully into account. The Prime Minister will have power to appoint nine of the 18 governors. I assure the House that the views put forward today will be considered seriously. I hope to overcome the anxieties that have been expressed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I was not here for the whole debate, but I understand the Minister's personal views on these matters. Does he not realise that the arrangements which he is attempting to defend are an affront to those of us in the London borough of Newham, where, because of an initiative by the Museum of London, there is to be a dockland museum? Indeed, already in my constituency there is a collection relating to the hard work in the docklands to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh has referred. We will have an institutional mess because there has been no proper provision in the Museum of London for Londonwide participation. Because of the dissolution of the GLC, which is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, the position is ironic. Therefore, I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the inappropriateness of the City as a final and long-term repository for this responsibility.

Mr. Luce: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman's borough of Newham has a close interest in the Museum of London. I was seeking to say earlier that it would be difficult to institutionalise an arrangement in which all the 32 successor authorities of London were involved in the arrangement. A problem of great complexity could arise.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South was consistent in his view about admission charges, and it is right that I should respond to that point. The board of governors of the Museum of London will have a discretion, as other trustees and boards of governors have for museums elsewhere. He may disagree with it, but that is the factual position. In my view, the discretion should be with the local bodies, so that they may decide for themselves whether in their particular circumstances it would be worth trying an experiment, either by means of voluntary donations or by admission charges, in the manner of the National Maritime Museum, with a view to finding out whether, in addition to the basic funding that the Government will continue to give to the museum, they can raise extra revenue. I believe that it is right in those circumstances to allow the choice to be made by the trustees.

Mr. Buchan: We have reached a sharp engagement of values and of conscience on this question. Surely anything that reduces entry to a museum or gallery can be seen only as an enemy of education.
When museums and galleries begin to make charges, having been encouraged to do so, surely any Minister will begin to re-evaluate his grants to them.
The important point to recognise is that the museums are not in the ownership of the Government. They are trustees for the public good, and the right to make charges should not be given to the governors.

Mr. Luce: I respect the view that the hon. Gentleman holds with great passion and consistency. As he rightly anticipated, we shall have to disagree.
There is no central direction from the Government that there should be admission charges in museums. The question must be for them to decide. If they determine, after a period, that admission charges are not leading to a general improvement in their services, or have resulted in a reduction in the number of visitors, it is for the board of governors and trustees to decide whether to continue with the experiment.
After only two and a half months in my present post, I am conscious that I cannot go round the country telling museums, galleries and other arts bodies that they must go flat out to raise extra revenue, and then punish them for so doing. They must not be penalised if they respond to the encouragement to raise extra revenue. That is precisely why I am looking at how we should treat the revenue and receipts of museums. It is fair to say that under the present system they are penalised when they seek to raise extra resources. The hon. Members for Paisley, South and for Newham, North-West and I disagree about whether museums and boards of governors and their trustees should have the freedom to determine what to do, and there is a legitimate point of difference between us. I take on board the point about encouraging rather than discouraging authorities when they wish to raise extra revenue.

Sir David Price: In the context of the Bill and the arrangements for the Museum of London, is the Minister prepared to tell us that the Corporation of the City of London will give the same guarantee as he will?

Mr. Luce: We shall have to discuss that with the City Corporation, but we are now anticipating something that may not happen. I do not know whether the Museum of London governors will decide that they wish to introduce voluntary or compulsory charges. That is a matter for them.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Luce: Let me complete my remarks so that we can understand each other.
We must give every encouragement to museums to help themselves but in such a way that they are not penalised for doing so. Therefore, we must maintain basic funding on the taxpayers' behalf. I make that commitment for the Museum of London and for other museums.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) mentioned sponsorship. We should not under-estimate the role that business sponsorship can play, especially when it is pooled with taxpayer and local authority funding and that of the media and television, which is substantial. I do not suggest that business sponsorship is a gigantic proportion of the total funding of the arts, but it is growing and it can play a part. My hon. Friend is right to say that business sponsorship can play a constructive part, because it has a multiplier effect. In the first year of operation, the

new Government business sponsorship incentive scheme has operated successfully. It has raised £5,500,000£4 million from business and £1·5 million from the taxpayer. That shows what the scheme can achieve. If the Museum of London, or other arts bodies, wish it, there is nothing to stop them from tapping business resources as a way of supplementing arts support. I am a great believer in the diversity of resources for the arts. It is not healthy to be dependent on one source.
Many points have been raised, but I do not wish to weary the House, so I shall reply by letter to some of the more specific points. However, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) asked who decides the total budget for the Museum of London. The position for the Museum of London is similar to that for other museums. They prepare annual budget proposals, submit them to the Government and, in the London museum's case, to the City. The Government and the City jointly agree the total budget that we judge can be afforded and, as provided in the Bill, each pays half. The arrangements will feature in the annual budget that I shall announce in December.

Mr. Freud: The previous experience was that, whichever of the three parties was least able to afford an amount, that party's minimal amount was made up in equal parts by the other two. Will the Minister give an assurance that if, in not unprecedented generosity, the City of London were to find a substantial sum, the Government would match it? That is what 50 per cent means.

Mr. Luce: Certainly we must, because a 50: 50 arrangement is provided for in the Bill. However, there is an upper ceiling on my budget, so it would have to be the subject of discussion. Expenditure on the museum this year is about £4 million, which means that we all pay one third, or about £1,350,000 each. We shall have to make an arrangement to ensure continual adequate funding for the museum which, no doubt, will require lengthy discussions with the City.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh discussed borrowing powers for the museum. I can expand on this matter in a letter, but I must stress that none of the museums or galleries has powers to borrow money for capital developments. We are not only talking about the problems of the Museum of London. However, the Government will meet their share of annual capital expenditure on approved projects. As my hon. Friend knows, that is usually done through the Votes. I am considering the matter in the context of next year's budget.

Sir David Price: The fact that the others have not done so is no reason for not starting now. We must have an experiment; why not start with the Museum of London? Although this is not the occasion to do it, I would argue the case for introducing other sources of money, especially through the business sponsorship scheme. That makes the case stronger for equipping all such bodies with capital resources.

Mr. Luce: I note what my hon. Friend says. He has raised a wider issue, but one of considerable importance—

Sir David Price: My hon. Friend raised it originally.

Mr. Luce: I am responding to my hon. Friend's point.
In supporting the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West mentioned the importance of the Council of Europe convention on the protection of architectural heritage. I am sure that he had in mind the Museum of London Bill when he mentioned it. The United Kingdom Government signed the convention at a conference in Spain. As my hon. Friend knows, the convention deals with the recording, preservation, conservation and presentation of our heritage. The United Kingdom already does that which the convention requires, and I hope that other nations will follow our lead.
Although I have not answered all the points raised in this important debate, I hope that hon. Members will accept my written replies. I hope that the House is now confident enough to give the Bill a Second Reading. The board of governors of the Museum of London met today and confirmed its full support for the Bill, including the provisions on archaeology. That is a good basis upon which to move forward. With that in mind, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than 28th November 1985, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

Ordered,
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

Ordered,
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Museum of London Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Museum of London Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Norman Buchan: It is rare for me to speak on a money resolution, although I was under the governance of Willie Ross for a long period. This narrow money resolution deals only with clause 4, because the major proposals on money under clause 3 are budgeted for in the £17 million available.
Under clause 4, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England may make grants to the board of governors for the purpose of assisting the board's archaeological services. The major functions of the museum under clause 3 are already catered for, but the change from a one third share to a half share represents a substantial amount of money. About £700,000 will have to come from the £17 million that has been earmarked for museums and galleries under this and other Bills. Clause 4 must also be covered by that £17 million. Is there any limit to the amount that can come out of that? The Government are determined that £17 million will be sufficient to cope with the problems of all museums and galleries in the United Kingdom after the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
The money earmarked for the performing arts was £16 million and it was grossly insufficient to the tune of something like £30 million. There was, therefore, a massive shortfall and the new Minister had to deal with it last week. He was unable to persuade the Treasury to give the full amount. That figure for the performing arts is the parallel figure to the £17 million endorsed as sufficient for galleries and museums. Already in the first Bill following the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils, we see that not only does it infringe on the democratic principle but that it also begins to erode the amount of money put to one side.
We must know if there will be sufficient cash to deal with problems arising for museums and galleries in all the metropolitan areas in England and Wales and in London itself, in which other problems may arise. Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no cuts, that sufficient money will come forward and that if the £17 million is insufficient it will be increased? Above all, can he guarantee that there will be no hold-up on the precise archaeological services which his hon. Friend argued for so ably? He said that it was one of the essential parts of the Bill and was almost extending the concept of archaeological services into the field of oral history, as witnessed by recent industrial archaeology at Covent Garden.
Given the record of this Government, the Minister must accept that they are rapidly creating a kind of industrial archaeology as more and more industries and factories which were living parts of the history of London are demolished as a result of the monetarist policies of the Government. If I were not dealing with the narrow remit of this clause I would be prepared to expand on that. The problem facing the Minister is that he has inherited a remit


containing the kind of values that run totally counter to the monetarist theories of this Government from the Prime Minister down.
Even in a money resolution the Government have substituted price, money, cash. Their souls chafe at the thought of turning art to cash, as Paul Jennings once said. As my hon. Friend rightly said when speaking in his capacity as chairman of the GLC, in consequence they value nothing. Will we get a guarantee and will more money be coming forward? Will the high hopes we all have for a proper Museum of London and the archaeological service connected with it be properly taken care of by the Government?

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): From the way in which the hon. Gentleman speaks about the Government's record in the arts, it seems that he has not quite taken on board the fact that in the last six years the Government have more than doubled the amount of money for the arts. In real terms we have increased the money. One of the great national bodies in the arts is the Arts Council and we have increased its money in real terms by 7 per cent in the past six years. I am very proud of the Government's record on the arts.

Mr. Buchan: I am delighted to hear from the Civil Service that in the past six years spending has increased in real terms by 7 per cent. We were told by the Minister's predecessor, the Minister who stood in for his predecessor, and the Department that it has been increased by 18 per cent in the past six years. I am glad they have listened to

some of the figures I gave them. When we look at the things that had to come out of the increase we find that it is down to about 1·3 per cent.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the Arts Council with the general budget for the arts. In real terms the total budget for the Arts Council over the past six years has increased by 7 per cent and there has been an increase in the total budget for the arts. We are talking about a money resolution and that information is by way of background. As I said in my opening remarks, we have made available an additional £17 million to deal with the abolition problems of museums. In his remarks the hon. Gentleman talked about extra funding. That will come from the £17 million. We shall continue under the ordinary budget for the provision of the basic funding.
In considering clause 4, we must remember that the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission; I have not dealt with that aspect in the debate and the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will appreciate the point I am making. It is in the context of the additional requirements for the archaeological services of London that we are discussing this resolution.
It has been clear for some time that that commission's annual grant would reflect the additional responsibilities for grant-aiding the Greater London archaeology service. The Secretary of State for the Environment is in that way making additional sums available for the purpose. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the position.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Museum of London Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the motions relating to the Statutory Instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

INCOME TAX

That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ivory Coast) Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 21st October, in the last Session of Parliament.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 21st October, in the last Session of Parliament.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 21st October, in the last Session of Parliament.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Soviet Union) Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 21st October, in the last Session of Parliament.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Norway) Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 21st October, in the last Session of Parliament.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985, No. 1630), dated 29th October 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Question agreed to.

Ordnance Survey (Trading Practices)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am grateful for the opportunity offered by this debate, in which I shall be discussing the livelihood, careers and job security of between 600 and 700 people who have their homes and work in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cheltenham, Sevenoaks and London. They all work for companies whose names will be familiar to hon. Members from days long ago in the classroom, from evenings by the fire, from motoring journeys and from wet nights canvassing on unfamiliar city streets.
Those companies are John Bartholomew in Edinburgh, William Collins in Glasgow, Geographers' A-Z in Sevenoaks, Geographia in Cheltenham and George Phillip in London. They are all small, private sector companies in competition with each other. They draw—this is an important point in what I shall say—and publish their own atlases, maps and street plans. They recruit and train young map-makers. It is a skilled and interesting job offering a good career and worthwhile prospects in the private sector.
Those companies have jointly formed the Map Publishers' Fair Trading Committee to represent their legitimate worries and concerns to Government and Parliament. For more than two years that committee has made representations to the Government about the present trading activities of the Ordnance Survey.
At least 37 Conservative Members are concerned about the issue. Representations have been made to the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Ministers, to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to the Prime Minister. The matter was raised in debate at the Scottish Conservative party conference and was the subject of motions at the Conservative party conference at Blackpool this year. Most of those 37 Members of Parliament have reflected the bewilderment and anxiety of their constituents who work or are otherwise involved in the private sector companies I have mentioned.
The confusion arises because the Ordnance Survey, which is a Civil Service Department controlled by the Secretary of State for the Environment, has entered the commercial sector of road atlas publishing. The map publishers contend—I fully support them and speak on their behalf—that the activities of the Ordnance Survey represent unfair competition. The Government argue otherwise, and in each and every case Ministers have repeated the original arguments that were presumably drafted by the Ordnance Survey and puffed up by officials and Ministers on their way to a formal letter of response.
I shall later state why I think such competition is unfair, but I shall now argue the points of principle. The Ordnance Survey, as a Government-owned trading activity, is required to be as commercial as possible. The Government have already decided that the Ordnance Survey cannot be privatised—so far, well and good. However, both this Government and their predecessor, elected in 1979, have given the highest possible priority to free enterprise and the growth of the private sector. In the atlas and street plan market, fully competitive trading has provided a rich variety of material to the consumer. In 1979, 1983 and even more so today, Government policy is to stimulate and


encourage small business, to privatise Government-owned business wherever possible, and to ensure the greatest possible efficiency and value for money for the taxpayer.
As for activities that must necessarily remain Government controlled—against the Government's clearly stated principles of free enterprise—why are the Government not only allowing but encouraging the Ordnance Survey to move in and use its massive resources, funded by the taxpayer, to seize the lion's share of a market hitherto well served by the private sector? The danger of the Ordnance Survey doing that is not imaginary. It is likely to lead to nationalisation by the back door, through a monopoly of map making in the hands of a Government Department, while a hitherto healthy private sector takes a caning and risks eventually going right down the pan. How can that be sensible Government policy? Is it just a staggering example of the right hand not realising what the left is doing?
There is some doubt about the fairness of the competition provided by the Ordnance Survey publications. The Government have said that it is fair, but the map publishers argue that it is not. I hope that the Minister will deal with these points and the question of unfair trading. No one denies that the Ordnance Survey is taking business away from the private sector. The Department of the Environment justifies that by arguing that the Ordnance Survey commercial business is expanding the market. The Ordnance Survey uses the same justification for the expensive advertising campaign that it has recently commissioned.
How does the Minister reconcile this with the Ordnance Survey's annual report for 1984–85, which clearly shows a 4·9 per cent reduction in the volume of Ordnance Survey small-scale maps sold during the past three years and a reduction of 8·9 per cent in the volume of large-scale maps sold during the same period? How can the charge of unfair trading by the Ordnance Survey be denied when in respect of the Ordnance Survey atlas of Great Britain the cost of compiling and drawing the maps used in that atlas—estimated at £500,000—was not taken into account?
The maps used in that atlas—the first Ordnance Survey joint venture—are a publicly owned asset worth at least £500,000. Therefore, why was a private company—in this case Country Life Books, which was the co-publisher—allowed to profit from the use of this asset without being charged an appropriate fee, especially as the independent map publishers would have to pay an appropriate fee?
Ordnance Survey advertising costs are extremely high compared with those of the private sector map maker and publisher, and some of its advertisements relate both to the commercial and non-commercial products of the Ordnance Survey. Will the Minister give an assurance that there has been no cross-subsidy?
The Ordnance Survey spends most of its money on large-scale surveys, and that is inevitably the area of greatest loss. Last year's expenditure was £33·6 million, with a revenue of only £11·4 million. Rather than trying to reduce the deficit of £22·2 million by commercial undertakings that are causing so much difficulty and are blatantly unfair to the private sector operator, why not follow the principle of leaving costs where they lie and recover the deficit from those who benefit from large-scale

mapping? This could be done by placing an appropriate charge on the use of this mapping for, say, the sale and purchase of land, buildings and houses, and a small charge, possibly relevant to agents' fees, could eliminate that deficit altogether.
Why is the Ordnance Survey, which is now a competitor in atlas and town plan publications, still allowed to dictate the rules and costs for the use of national survey data by its very own competitors, all of which operates to the single advantage of the Ordnance Survey? In the case of the Ordnance Survey motoring atlas, co-published with Temple Press, why was the facsimile royalty charge not included in the product pricing?
The first Ordnance Survey co-publication arranged with the Hamlyn group was done without any invitation to bid being offered to any other publisher, yet a condition of Ordnance Survey co-publication is that only Ordnance Survey mapping material is used and that the copyright remains vested with the Ordnance Survey. Private sector map makers and publishers, such as Geographers' A-Z and Bartholomew, are thus prevented from entering such agreements as it would mean discarding their own mapping material. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is discrimination against the private sector map maker, who has invested a great deal of capital in the cartography of the country?
I come back to my earlier point of principle. The risk that we run is of gradually losing the activities of the private sector map maker and moving to a monopoly where map making is carried out only by the Qrdnance Survey; and although it may co-publish with publishers, none of those 600 or 700 map makers will be working in the private sector. That cannot be right in terms of the Government's political principles.
It has been argued that the review by Peat Marwick Mitchell and Company has been used as evidence of fair trading by the Ordnance Survey. In their report, the accountants said that this was not the purpose of their investigation. In paragraph 2.11 they said:
Our brief did not ask us to comment substantively on the equity of the Ordnance Survey's commercial operations, but rather to recommend a form of presentation in the trading accounts which would allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to equity.
Paragraph 2.4 says:
we have not conducted an audit of its accounts and not attempted to check either compliance with systems explained to us or the accuracy of the accounting statements so far produced.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the accountants did not investigate any specific Ordnance Survey commercial production, such as the Ordnance Survey atlas, to prove or disprove the specific charge of unfair trading on specific products?
An undertaking was given that Peat Marwick Mitchell and Company would conduct an independent review and that it would investigate the charges that the Ordnance Survey was trading unfairly. I attended a meeting with a previous Minister when that assurance was given. Why, then, were the accountants given their terms of reference by the very organisation that they were required to investigate? We know that their findings went first to the Ordnance Survey before being presented to the Minister. Naturally, the group that I represent cannot feel confident that that survey was completely impartial.
Will my hon. Friend guarantee that the presentation of Ordnance Survey trading accounts will, in accordance with the terms of reference given to the investigation, be


in sufficient detail for the reader to be able to judge whether trading has been fair for any particular Ordnance Survey commercial publication? We are competing with new products in the shop and on the street.
I move on to the general efficiency of the Ordnance Survey as an organisation. The Department of the Environment has said that detailed reviews of the map-production facilities—

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I do not think that my hon. Friend means to imply that Peat Marwick Mitchell and Company was not impartial, although I agree with his point. Is not my hon. Friend saying that the terms of reference that the company was given were not sufficiently all embracing for it to answer the questions that we should have liked it to answer?

Mr. Wolfson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am casting no aspersions upon the professional ability of Peat Marwick Mitchell. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, if one wants consultants or accountants to answer a question it is crucial to detail the exact question that they must cover. In this case that was not done to the satisfaction of those who are worried about unfair trading practices.
As I said, the Department of the Environment has told us that detailed reviews of the map production facilities at Ordnance Survey headquarters have established that the current operating arrangements are the most economic method of working. Who has undertaken those reviews? Can the people involved be asked to explain how it is more economic to confine the expensive equipment and air-conditioned accommodation that exists there to single-shift working? In our view, the kind of capital tied up in the Ordnance Service operation, if held in the private sector, could not be sustained by single-shift working. Machinery and equipment would have to be used far more extensively.
I find it surprising that the Government do not pursue that point directly and specifically. Do we not argue in every other case that when free enterprise is involved it is its need for continuous profitability that forces management to make the best use of its capital equipment? I suggest that the pressures are not there in this case.
I also bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention the fact that a Rayner inquiry was carried out into the former directorate of overseas surveys, the sister organisation to the Ordnance Survey abroad. That has now been dramatically reduced in size and incorporated into the Ordnance Survey. That survey by Rayner found that the directorate of overseas surveys was less efficient than the private sector. The standards of operation and staffing at the directorate were at the time of the inquiry comparable to those of the Ordnance Survey. The private sector, not unnaturally, believed itself to be more efficient than the Ordnance Survey. As there has been no similar inquiry into Ordnance Survey efficiency, does my hon. Friend agree that such an inquiry should be initiated as soon as possible?
I am grateful for having had rather longer than one normally gets to develop my point in this Adjournment debate. I said that a considerable number of Conservative Members are, not unnaturally, worried about this matter. I can perhaps summarise that anxiety in the words of one of my hon. Friends who wrote in support of the points that I have been airing tonight. He said:

In the light of my strongly held views that small business should be encouraged and not subject to what is unfair competition, I certainly support the thrust of the argument put forward by members of the Map Publishers Fair Trading Committee.
That is merely one quotation from similar points made by a great many of my hon. Friends who are also bewildered, uneasy and angry at what appears to be a contradiction in terms of Government policy and action.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) has initiated the debate. I am pleased also to acknowledge that he has included a number of colleagues in much of what he has said. He knows that I share his concern that a Government Department should not be allowed to enter the market and to take work away from successful private sector businesses by any means of unfair competition. I acknowledge the task that he has undertaken on behalf of private map makers throughout the country in his remarks. I shall do my best to set out in context the position of the Ordnance Survey in relation to private sector operators.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks knows that in 1981 my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when Secretary of State for the Environment, set out clearly the Government's policy towards Ordnance Survey activities. In particular, this policy required the Ordnance Survey to reduce its call on public funds while remaining efficient. The main method by which this was to be achieved was by raising the financial recovery targets for its large-scale activities, by maximising the recovery on small scales and by encouraging greater co-operation with private sector publishers. Within the management of the organisation, it had to operate within the constraints of financial and manpower limits and to recover the cost of commercial products from its customers together with a return on the capital employed.
It has been suggested that the Ordnance Survey should meet its financial targets solely by improving sales of its existing products. It has, of course, attempted to do this, but without success. It therefore finds itself competing in the area of the market which private map publishers find commercially attractive. It is worth mentioning that practically all private sector publishers which produce atlases and maps of Great Britain use Ordnance Survey material as their base.
Without the co-operation of the Ordnance Survey in making this mapping available, many of these publishers could not have created their mapping businesses and could not continue in business. It is, of course, the Ordnance Survey which carries the large costs of keeping the mapping up to date, and it continues to do so within the much more stringent guidelines introduced in 1981, which, as my hon. Friend says, are continously under review. Despite this, on entering the market previously dominated by the private sector, the Ordnance Survey has not sought to withdraw permission for the private sector to use Ordnance Survey material, which obviously it could have done. It has entered the market on equal terms by charging itself royalties for the use of its own material and by using full commercial guidelines and overheads.
My hon. Friend referred to advertising. I know that there have been criticisms about the way in which the Ordnance Survey has used advertising. It has been


criticised by consultants for spending too little in the past on advertising campaigns. The current campaign is being funded by small-scale map revenue. Even so, there has been some criticism of the Ordnance Survey's commercial activities by a minority of publishers, and it was to eliminate any possible worry about unfair competition from the Ordnance Survey that my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government announced the publication of "Guidelines for Ordnance Survey Commercial Activities" in July 1984. These guidelines direct that the Ordnance Survey undertakes its commercial activities on a fair basis and it is a cardinal requirement that there should be no unfair cross-subsidy of this commercial work from the basic scales to which the taxpayer contributes. My hon. Friend will know that the Ordnance Survey commercial trading practices were queried when the map publishers fair trading committee put a case to the Office of Fair Trading, but will also know that the OFT eventually concluded that the complaints were not justified.
The Ordnance Survey is meticulous in ensuring that its commercial trading practices are not just fair, but seen to be fair. It is a matter of routine that, when establishing a selling price, all costs contributing to co-publications are considered. The use of marginal costing is not employed. Not only are the Ordnance Survey direct material and overhead costs considered; so, too, are the co-publisher's costs which normally include editorial, printing, design and storage costs in addition to salaries and overheads. The accounting methods used by the Ordnance Survey are as nearly as possible in line with those used by any commercial undertaking.
A royalty rate in line with that charged to private sector publishers for an equivalent product is similarly included in the costs. The value of the Ordnance Survey name is taken into account and selling and distribution costs are included. Finally, a realistic profit margin is added before the selling price is determined. Unless the profit is attractive to both the co-publisher and the Ordnance Survey, such a project will not proceed. Later this year, the Ordnance Survey will publish its 1984–85 trading accounts. This will be the first time—I hope that this answers my hon. Friend's point—such detailed accounts have been published. I am sure that they will be of interest to all other map makers for comparison.
To establish its co-publications, the Ordnance Survey invites publishers to come to open days at its Southampton headquarters so that ideas can be exchanged. These open days have so far attracted about 80 publishers, some of which are established map publishers and some of which are not. No publishers have been excluded from the open days, or from consideration as potential co-publishing partners. Ideas for such co-publications are generally put forward by private sector firms. It is very rare for the Ordnance Survey to initiate a co-publication.
After discussions with a potential co-publisher, a joint decision is taken as to whether the project will proceed. An important consideration at this stage is whether the project uses the archive sensibly. After initial approval, there are a number of stages during which the project is reviewed and a decision to proceed or cancel is taken, but the overriding principle in these reviews is financial viability.
The Government believe that one of the benefits of competition is to improve the standard of products, and since the Ordnance Survey expanded its commercial activities, the quality of maps, atlases and guidebooks has improved. Those new products have increased public awareness of maps and generally given a better understanding of maps. It is hoped that that will stimulate a greater demand, which will be to the advantage of private sector map publishers and the Ordnance Survey.
I have noted the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks has made so eloquently, and must assure him that the Government share his interest in the continuing viability of small businesses. That is why the Ordnance Survey is required to follow very correct trading practices so that there is no danger of successful private sector map makers being disadvantaged by unfair competition from a Government Department.
I have already mentioned that the Ordnance Survey will be publishing its trading account for the first time later this year. In 1984, the Government asked the eminent firm of city consultants Peat Marwick Mitchell to advise on the format and design of those accounts. My hon. Friend spoke at length about its report. At the start of the review, Peat Marwick and Ordnance Survey agreed that the study would not simply advise on the trading accounts, but would "examine underlying costing methods" in order to be confident that costs are attributed to different products fairly, particularly to the co-publications that are not Exchequer-supported.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, announced the publication of the Peat Marwick review in April 1985. It concluded:
subject to the points made in the report we are generally satisfied that accounting methods used by Ordnance Survey to allocate costs between products are soundly based and cover all major costs
and particularly
the use in internal product costings of a notional royalty rate equivalent to that charged to third party publishers is fair; an argument can be advanced that the particular rates used in internal product costings are sometimes too high".
All the independent evidence therefore shows that Ordnance Survey is acting fairly. Most map publishers base their products on Ordnance Survey material and accept competition with each other. I am bound to ask: why should Ordnance Survey be the only publisher not allowed to use Ordnance Survey mapping in the profitable areas of the market? One can hardly expect Ordnance Survey to continue carrying out the expensive survey, providing the unprofitable mapping, producing the base-mapping as a source for its own competitors, while allowing them to keep the more lucrative areas.
Fears are also expressed that Ordnance Survey competition may undermine employment in private sector map publishing. My hon. Friend opened the debate by referring to employment. However, I think that it is true to say that Ordnance Survey co-publications have created considerable work in private sector printing, publishing and distribution sectors. In fact, all the co-publications have been printed by private firms, and some hon. Members will doubtless find many employers in their constituencies who support the new Ordnance Survey activities.

Mr. Wolfson: While I accept that there may be increased work through the co-publications, does not my


hon. Friend agree that that work does not use map makers? It is only publishing work. I was being very specific about the career opportunities for those involved in map making in the group that I was speaking of.

Mrs. Rumbold: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes about employment, but I reiterate that the group of people to which he referred has several opportunities for its expertise in map making as well as increased opportunities for employment arising out of increased publication of Ordnance Survey and private sector map making.
With regard to continuing Government policy towards Ordnance Survey, I can do no better than quote from a recent letter by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which she stated:
It is an essential part of the Government's policy that where there are Government-owned trading activities which cannot be privatised (and we have looked at Ordnance Survey and decided that it cannot be) then they should be run so far as possible on a commercial basis. That means that the cost of the services should fall to the fullest possible extent on the customers of those services, and not on the taxpayer. We therefore require Ordnance Survey to expand the market for their commercial products on the basis of fair competition without cross-subsidy or any Government guarantee".
Finally, Ordnance Survey has long been held in high regard and I am sure that under present policies it will continue to be, and that the Government, the private sector and the public will all continue to benefit from its activities.

Rape

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In a House where women are so greatly under-represented, we have a special responsibility to concern ourselves with the growing scourges of modern-day society. I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the question of the growth in the incidence of rape, and, particularly, in the divergence of sentencing policy that we appear to be seeing in the judiciary at present.
Rape is one of the nastier and, certainly, more violent crimes. We should speak of it as precisely that—a vicious sexual assault on another person who neither invites nor desires such an attack. Today detective chief superintendent Thelma Wagstaff of the Metropolitan police is quoted in the newspapers as saying that the crime of rape—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mrs. Dunwoody: Thelma Wagstaff said that the crime of rape has increased by about 6 per cent this year, and that it is getting nastier. Five years ago a victim would have told the police "He raped me." Now the offender is also committing buggery, forcing the victim to have oral sex and urinating over her. The growth is in one of the most appalling crimes, and the House must consider it with great urgency.
Sexual violence against women is a continuing problem. Recent publicity has highlighted the horrifying growths of gang rapes, rapes of small children, and some of the most appalling degradations of human beings. However, rape has existed for as long as there have been human beings. I trust that we shall not only remember it in the House when there is a great deal of unpleasant publicity about it. If we are to deal with some of those difficulties, we must consider the matter in wider terms than we have done so far.
We must consider how police procedures operate when a rape is reported to them. The Metropolitan police also reported that when women police constables were appointed specifically to deal with this violent crime, there was a 60 per cent. increase in the reporting of rapes. That is an astonishing figure, and it shows that this underlying frightening crime has always existed in the community. I am sorry to say that the feeling continues that in some way the woman contributes to the circumstances, although not in those who understand the enormous degradation and fear that the victim suffers, by wearing particular clothes, by her inability to get herself home safely, or by the fact that young people are on the streets after a certain hour of night. In those cases it is suggested that they are contributing to the violent crime that is perpetrated against them.
It is important to stop talking about victims of crime in that sense. Frequently when a woman must go through the traumatic experience of reporting what has happened to her, she desperately needs to be handled by people who are carefully trained and understand the extent of the problem.
I am increasingly worried that we do not have sufficient special centres available. I welcome the fact that the police


have now thought about the need to create special legal and medical centres, where rape victims can be given assistance by those most skilled. However, we are still not dealing with many of the problems as we should.
Because of the rise in the number of rape cases, I asked to see some of the statistics on sentencing, and was horrified to see what seemed to be a drop in the severity of sentences being handed out, and that they do not seem to comply with the judges' orders. We must have consistency in sentencing, and the sentences must reflect the anger and outrage of society as a whole. We cannot tolerate the suggestion that, although rape is a serious crime, custodial sentences are not apposite and that it is probably better to move away from long sentences.
The reported remarks in a court case of a recent gang rape were clearly framed in terms that reflected the anger of society, but the sentences that were applied, although not out of line with the existing sentencing policy of many judges, did not seem to reflect the anger adequately.
I find it quite impossible to understand why the murder of a child or the most savage and violent rape of a woman should not be reflected in a sentence that at least ensures that those who perpetrate these appalling crimes are not allowed to escape the true consequences of their actions.
The Government have another responsibility. I want them to consider urgently whether they can provide funding for a series of rape crisis centres. There are several of these autonomous centres which give support and legal and medical counselling to people who have been subjected to rape. They are funded by a Department of Health and Social Security grant of £22,000 for three years—a minute amount of money when one considers the highly skilled and difficult task that people in those centres accomplish. It is important that they should not depend, as they do now, largely on voluntary donations.
Will the Minister consider talking to his opposite numbers with responsibility for health and for education as a matter of urgency and try to establish a series of rape crisis centres across the country with proper funding? That would enable them to begin to deal with this unholy tide of savagery. The centres provide after-care for many of those who will have to go through the trauma of a court case after their appalling experience.
Many women who succeed in coming to terms with what has happened to them, but who nevertheless go through a period of shock, need support to get through a court case. They need independent counselling and it is important that they should have access to women lawyers and women doctors. There are few women police surgeons. That is a disadvantage because this is the one crime in regard to which even the most levelheaded women flinch from a male doctor.
The London Rape crisis centre sees about 1,300 women for the first time in a year. It has about 3,000 cases, but many of them are second and third visits. The centre tells me that it is its very independence and autonomy that those with whom it deals most value. Women who have been raped are vulnerable to official procedures that carry them along with scent regard for the sensitivity of the situation. It is those who have to deal with rape victims who must consider how best to deal with the matter. It is clear that, until now, we have not succeeded in that regard.
Will the Minister consider sentencing policy, and now? Why is there so much variation in sentences? Why is it

impossible to reflect society's clear view that such barbaric behaviour is unnacceptable at any level? The rundown of public services and difficulties experienced in quite simple things such as public transport, the need to travel alone and the reduction in the number of guards on trains, all affect women's feelings when travelling on public transport. They are at risk. Therefore, the Government have a special responsibility to seek ways of protecting them. We are very few in the House although we are vocal for our number. Nevertheless, there are many outside who look to us for protection. They have not received it so far. I hope that the Minister will give me an undertaking tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): It is not empty piety on my part when I say to the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that I greatly enjoyed her speech. She spoke with eloquence. She has raised a topic of importance and significance and I am glad that she had the opportunity to do so. I say so rather against my own interests because I had anticipated an early evening. If every Adjournment debate was on as important a topic and was conducted as effectively as the hon. Lady has conducted this one, there would be fewer junior Ministers with a jaundiced look as the moment for an Adjournment debate came near.
I endorse every word that the hon. Lady said about the nature of the crime of rape. It is always a serious matter. Very often it is a vicious offence and it is properly regarded as one of the most serious offences in the criminal calendar.
It is an appropriate starting point to emphasise that the view of Parliament for many years has been that the maximum penalty for rape should be life imprisonment. I shall say more about sentencing, but it is not the duty of Parliament to pass sentences. That is the duty of the courts and it is distinct from our role of making legislation and the Government's role as the executive. Parliament has left no one in doubt about the view that it takes. Life imprisonment is the maximum sentence available to the courts. Only offences that are regarded as the most grave carry that term of imprisonment. Rape is one of them. That is the clear message that the House has sent out for many years.
I am glad to have played some part in permitting another message to be sent out, with the assistance that the Government were able to give to the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 1985, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), another doughty lady campaigner in the House. One proposal in that Act that was perhaps overshadowed by the proposal on kerbcrawling was that the possible penalty for attempted rape should be raised from seven years to life imprisonment.
It was an anomaly that the offence of attempted rape—a serious matter for which the full intent to rape is required—should carry a penalty so low when the offence of rape itself carried life imprisonment. Now the two are equated. Therefore, the courts have all the powers they need to pass sentences that can truly reflect society's abhorrence of this crime.
The hon. Lady mentioned sentences. Of course, I am only too happy to take the opportunity to put on the record what we in the Home Office know about recent sentences for rape in the hope that it will be of interest. The figures


for 1984 show that a total of 325 defendants were sentenced by the Crown courts for rape. Of those, 212 went for immediate imprisonment as adults, 97 young offenders received young offender custodial sentences in youth custody detention centres and the like, two received hospital orders and 14 received non-custodial sentences.
When one comes to the length of the term of detention imposed in a youth custody detention centre or prison, one finds that of the 297 offenders sentenced to imprisonment, 81 were sentenced for up to two years, 190 for two years to five years, 20 for over five years, and six to life imprisonment. That suggests that the average sentence for rape is in the region of two to five years.
I stress again that it is not for me as a Minister to comment on the propriety of sentences, but I suspect that the hon. Lady would say an average of two to five years is inadequate. She nods her head in agreement. I imagine that a large number of people would agree with her. However, I repeat that it is a matter for the judiciary. It is for Government and Parliament to ensure that there is no let or hindrance to the judiciary in passing those sentences because the maximum penalties are set too low. Now that Parliament has increased the maximum sentence for attempted rape, no one can fairly suggest that Parliament has failed in its duty in asserting that the maximum available sentence is life imprisonment.

Mrs. Dunwoody: My concern is whether the guidelines of the Lord Chief Justice is being followed by the individual courts. I accept that there is no conceivable way in which Parliament could or should decide what sentences there should be in individual cases when we have not heard the evidence. If there are guidelines, it is important that they should not only be followed but be seen to be followed.
Will the Minister undertake to consider the definition of rape, which is very narrow and needs some redefining? It excludes many serious sexual assualts.

Mr. Mellor: On the second question, a range of charges are available. Although indecent assault is a lesser charge than rape, as a result of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake the penalty for indecent assault has been increased from two to 10 years. Even if the act of rape, which has to be fairly rigorously defined, has not been committed, there are other offences, carrying substantial penalties, which can be charged in appropriate cases.
There are constitutional proprieties to be observed with regard to guidelines. That is a matter for the Court of Appeal and not for me. The leading case on the matter is the Crown against Roberts in 1982, in which the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, emphasised his view of rape in terms with which I think the hon. Lady would agree. He said:
Rape is always a serious crime. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, it calls for an immediate custodial sentence, first of all to mark the gravity of the offence, secondly to emphasise public disapproval, thirdly to serve as a warning to others, fourthly to punish the offender, and last, but by no means least, to protect women".
The significance of the Roberts judgment was that it listed various aggravating factors where it would be appropriate for the courts to take a particularly severe view in punishing an offender. It has to be borne in mind that, although rape is always a serious matter, rapes vary in gravity, particularly as regards the amount of violence applied.
In the Roberts judgment, the Lord Chief Justice listed the matters that would assist judges in determining whether a rape was a particularly serious one and thus merited a particularly severe penalty. The points listed were: whether a weapon had been used to frighten or to injure; whether the victim had sustained serious physical or mental injury; whether violence was used over and above that necessarily involved in the act itself; whether there were brutal threats; whether there were further sexual indignities or perversions other than the rape itself. The latter point is particularly relevant to the very telling and equally chilling phrases in the appropriate speech made by the Metropolitan police detective from which the hon. Lady quoted. Other points listed were: whether the victim was young or old; whether the offender was in a position of trust; whether the offender had intruded into the victim's home; whether the victim had been deprived of her liberty for a period; whether there were multiple rapes, or rapes by a group. That might be thought to be clear guidance to the courts as to the categories of rape that merit exceptionally heavy sentences.
However, the Lord Chief Justice has not yet set out further guidance as to the appropriate bandings in terms of sentences. The parallel might be the case of Aramah, relative to the sentencing of offenders for dealing in class A drugs, where clear bandings are given in terms of the years of imprisonment that might be appropriate for any given value of drug smuggled. The hon. Lady is asking whether there might be a case for the Court of Appeal to go a little further and convert the Aramah principles into the sentences applicable in rape cases. That is not a matter for me, but it is by no means an unhelpful suggestion, and I undertake to send a copy of Hansard to the Lord Chief Justice. He must make of it what he will. It is clearly important that the courts should reflect the gravity of such offences, especially the serious manifestations shown by some of the examples given in the Roberts case.
The hon. Lady also asked about the underlying reality in recorded offences of rape. We all know that there is a dark figure of crime and that the number of crimes recorded in no sense represents the number of crimes committed. We must also be clear that sexual crimes are among the most difficult crimes to report, because the victim feels humiliated, distressed and embarrassed, not only at having to recount what happened but at the fear that it might be put to her that she had led the individual on. By making the complaint, she might render herself liable to an ordeal lasting for months, involving her in giving evidence publicly about intimate matters.
In recent years, a conscious effort has been made to help the victims of rape to have more confidence in the authorities so that they will make complaints, and so that they can be confident that their complaints will be sensitively handled. One consequence of that is that the number of rapes recorded has increased significantly in recent years. I have the figures from 1974 to 1984. From 1974 to 1981, the figure fluctuated between 1,000 and 1,200. In 1984, it had increased to more than 1,400, and the figure for the first six months of this year shows a further significant increase. For the first six months of 1985, 780 rapes were recorded in England and Wales, compared with 613 for the same period in 1984 and 591 for the same period in 1983. During the first six months of 1985, the increase in the Metropolitan police district was 248. For the first six months of 1984, it was 152; and for the first six months of 1983, it was 138.
We do not know whether there is an underlying upward trend, but we know that the Metropolitan police and other police forces have made a real effort to ensure that the reporting of rape is made easier, that the interviews are sensitively handled and that matters proceed in a way guaranteed to give the victim the greatest confidence in the system. As far as we know, until recently in some police areas, when a victim did not wish to proceed with a complaint, it was not registered as an offence. Now it is. That may have caused an increase in the figures, but it is a worthwhile consequence of the efforts to make the figures more material and to reflect genuinely the incidence of that crime in the community.
The Government played their part in this by issuing, in March 1983, guidance to chief officers on the conduct of rape investigations. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has seen that, but I shall send her a copy. It covers such matters as medical examinations, and the importance of sensitivity in questioning victims and of ensuring the victim's comfort and anonymity. The circular emphasises the need for medical examinations to take place in an environment where stress is reduced and where there is an atmosphere of care and concern.
The Metropolitan police have a special working party on rape and it is looking into the matter of recruiting more female police surgeons, as the hon. Lady suggested. The police hope to open a number of victim examinations suites where rape victims can be medically examined and interviewed in discreet and reasonably congenial surroundings. The first of these will shortly be opened in Brentford.
The interviewing of rape victims should be carried out by an officer experienced in such cases who, as the hon. Lady says, will often be a woman police officer. The Metropolitan police have a special scheme for women police officers to train them in taking statements, and for detectives there is a course on the techniques of sexual investigations. That was introduced last December.
In general it is not necessary to ask a complainant about previous sexual experience with third parties, because under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 there are strict limitations on discussion of this matter in court. The police can take an active interest in the welfare of victims by referring them to local medical, social or voluntary services. The Metropolitan police have recently made arrangements with a number of London hospitals with specialist facilities for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, to provide priority appointments for the victims of serious sexual assaults. If the victim does not want a priority appointment, she will be given the addresses and telephone numbers of the hospitals and all the details.
These are steps in the right direction, but the other important matter is that the police should fully investigate rape, treating it as the serious offence it is. It is reassuring to know that last year some 68 per cent of reported rapes—that is, some 975 cases—were cleared up. Obviously, one wants the figure to approach 100 per cent and no one is complacent about 68 per cent, but the fact that two thirds of rapes are cleared up is a fact upon which we must congratulate the police and it will spur them on to further efforts.
There is one other matter which the hon. Lady did not mention; the necessary changes in the 1976 Act about the anonymity of the victim and also the restriction, save with the permission of the judge, on the way in which the victim might be cross-examined about previous sexual experience. The Act also had in it a provision that the defendant should also enjoy the privilege of anonymity. The Criminal Law Revision Committee report on sexual offences, published last year, endorsed the views of the Heilbron committee which had earlier considered this matter. It was entirely in favour of anonymity for complainants but was against it for defendants.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee rejected as invalid the argument that the man should be granted anonymity just because the victim has it. The anonymity rule seems to suggest that in some way the interests of the victim and the defendant can be equated in a way which is not helpful. The Criminal Law Revision Committee also drew attention to the difficulty which arises where a man is charged with rape and other offences. If he is acquitted of rape but sent to prison for other offences it may be that a newspaper would be acting unlawfully if it named him. That is an extraordinary situation. Similarly, if a dangerous criminal charged with rape escapes before conviction, publicity cannot be used to trace him. In time, perhaps, the House will have an opportunity to reconsider that point.
This has been an important debate. There are areas which can be dealt with only by the courts and we must leave it to their judgment. Parliament must set out the framework of the sentences that are appropriate for rape, and we have done that. Parliament and the Government must intervene in other ways, and I hope I have set out what the Home Office has tried to do. I have taken the hon. Lady's point about the Department of Health and I shall certainly relay her opinions to the Department. This has been a valuable opportunity for me to reiterate what she has done. There are few graver and more appalling offences in the criminal calendar than rape and everything the Government are doing is designed to reinforce that strong and firm message.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.